[8:1] Compare NANSEN (page 48 and following).
[9:1] The Norwegians, as aforesaid, have generally looked upon Sweden's
maintaining its conception of the Union law as something very criminal;
this has been Norway's right alone.
[9:2] Compare NANSEN (page 54). »The change in the Swedish Constitution
in 1885 has therefore become the principal cause of the last twenty
years' strife in the union.»
[10:1] On the Norwegian side, it has been said, that Sweden in 1885
adopted the same method, when, by changing the Swedish Constitution by
themselves, they reorganized the Council for Foreign affairs. It must,
however, be observed, that, in this, Sweden is supported by its own
right, as acknowledged by the foremost Norwegian writers on state law and
Norwegian Conservatives, to undertake the management of foreign policy.
This legal stand-point had been adopted in 1835, when a resolution was
passed in the _Swedish_ Cabinet to admit the Norwegian Minister of State
to the Ministeral Council. The Norwegian claim to participate in the
revision of the Swedish Constitution is, however, unwarrantable, as
Norway, in the indisputably unionistic Stadtholder question in 1860
maintained that Sweden was not warranted in interfering when revisions or
changes were made in the Norwegian Constitution.
[11:1] Compare NANSEN (page 68 and following).
[12:1] It is a singular coincidence, that Norway in these days, when it
has brought the Consular question to a climax, has begun to carry out a
general rise in the Fiscal rates; the mercantile interests of »the land
of Free Trade» Norway evidently do not lie so very deep after all.
[14:1] The question as to when a matter shall be discussed in a Joint
Cabinet or not, has not been the smallest of the stumbling blocks in the
thorny path of the Union negotiations. In Norway, to quote Mr HAGERUP,
there has been quite a »sickly» fear of having matters settled there. On
the Norwegian Left Side they have defended the opinion, that only those
matters which, being expressly mentioned in the Act of Union, as being
distinctively Union-matters ought to be brought there. In Sweden it has
been held, that the Act of Union has no power to give an exhaustive
account as to what matters belong to the Union and which do not. Whether
it can be considered a matter which concerns both the Kingdoms depends
entirely on the exact nature of the matter itself. _This latter
conception has been adopted of old._
[15:1] Compare No. I §§ 5, 15, 30, 31.
[18:1] The Swedish majority had contemplated a provision in the Act of
Union, wherevy it became incumbent for both Kingdoms to place a fixed
minimum of fighting forces to the disposition of the Union.
[18:2] NANSEN says (page 71) »Divisions arose partly over the resistance
from the Swedish side to the unanimous demand of the Norwegian delegates
for a separate Consular Service.» This is, as plainly apparent, an
extremely modified version of the truth.