[2:1] NANSEN (English edition). The same author writes (page 62):
»Finally in 1903(!) the Swedish Government declared openly that the
present arrangement was not in accordance with Norway's just demands for
equality in the Union.» How such a statement can be made is simply
incomprehensible.
[2:2] How the Norwegian Storthing, made up as it is, of large numbers of
lawyers, has contributed to this, is well known to all.
[2:3] On this account, it has especially been vindicated that the Act of
Union plainly indicates a joint Foreign Policy, which is scarcely
possible without a joint Foreign Administration; that the same Act of
Union only acknowledges the Swedish Foreign Minister of State as the head
of the Foreign Administration for the Union; that in the »Eidswold
Constitution», at the commencement of the Union, the paragraph referring
to the Norwegian Foreign Minister of State was simply ignored. This last
inconvenient fact is interpreted by the modern Norwegian theory of State
Law as implying, that the Norwegian Constitution has left the
administration of Foreign affairs to the King personally, who, in his
turn on the grounds of this authority has placed it in the hands of the
Swedish Minister of Foreign Affairs. NANSEN (page 49 and following.) The
artfulness of this legal construction becomes immediately obvious. It is
exceedingly remarkable also to find that Norwegian parliamentarism can
commit such a blasphemy towards the Constitution, that it has confered a
position of importance on the King Himself.
[3:1] The Norwegian Right Side (Conservative) has not either emphatically
disputed the Swedish conception.
[3:2] Illustrative of the Norwegian way of confusing the Swedish _legal
conception_ and the Swedish _amendment programme_ in the Union question
is an expression of NANSEN (page 61). According to him »the Swedish
government as late as 1891 appeared, as already mentioned, inclined to
deny Norway every right of taking part in the administration of foreign
affairs», while in 1893 the Swedish Government offered a joint Minister
for Foreign Affairs for the Union. The state of the case was, that the
Swedish Government in 1891 offered Norway _increase_ of influence in
Foreign affairs, but in motioning this offer the Swedish legal point of
view was maintained, that the administration of Foreign (diplomatic)
affairs for the Union by the Swedish Minister for Foreign Affairs was
founded on legal right. Reflections arise of themselves.
[4:1] Sweden has especially tried to annul the paragraph 25 of Norway's
fundamental law which limits the duty of its Union defence. According to
this paragraph, the Yeomanry and other Norwegian troops, that cannot be
reckoned as belonging to the line, may not be employed outside the
boundaries of the Kingdom. This law has proved so much the more
pernicous, as the Norwegians by their recruiting regulations have
illoyally withdrawn from the Union-defence part of their fighting forces,
by outrageously entering into the line a limited number only of the
annual classes of recruits.
[5:1] Mr HAGERUP also affirmed openly in the Storthing of 1904 that the
Union question had in quite too high a degree come to be regarded by the
Norwegian parties as a workshop of weapons for elections campaigns.
[5:2] We get a glimpse of this romance, in the midst of the ultra modern
»glorious» revolution. At a large meeting at Hamar it was decreed, that
the new King should bear a name after one on the ancient Kings of Norway.
In a festival number of a »Vordens Gang» in honour of the revolution we
find printed a »Psalm on Olaf's Day» written by BJÖRNSON.
[6:1] That Norway in carrying out the law (1899) respecting the flag,
broke an agreement with Sweden made in 1844, was of course only in
conformity with everything else.