[19:1] It is undoubtedly Russia's proceedings in Finland which have
especially influenced the recent unionist-political views of BJÖRNSON.
[21:1] The most effective power in the Committee was D:r SIGURD IBSEN,
who is credited with having drawn up the drafts of the result of the
Committee's debates. The rest of the members were the Swedish Ambassador
BILDT at the Court of St James, the Consul General AMÉEN in Barcelona,
and the Consul General CHRISTOPHERSEN in Antwerp.
[21:2] The Swedish members of the Committee indicate, incidentally, that
they do not consider it to be altogether desirable.
[22:1] NANSEN evidently looks upon the matter in this light (page 64):
»No change in the Consular regulations was made, and it therefore,
follows that even the _Swedish Commissioners_ did not think it
incompatible with the terms of the Union, for Norway to have separate
Consuls». And, of course, he mentions, »the _unanimous conclusion_ of the
committee of experts from _both_ countries» (p. 72).
[23:1] N:o 3.
[23:2] The Swedish members were, the Premier, BOSTRÖM, the Minister for
Foreign Affairs Mr. LAGERHEIM, and State Secretary HUSBERG. The Norwegian
members were, Prime Ministers BLEHR and QVAM, and State Secretaries
KNUDSEN and IBSEN
[24:1] N:o 3 These latter decisions in the Communiqué, which are
conclusive in explaining the later standpoint taken by the Swedish
government, are, of course, omitted by NANSEN.
[25:1] The same difference also occurs in the drafts of laws which have
been proposed at more recent dates.
[26:1] It is manifest that it is on the part of Sweden that the idea of
identical laws has arisen. In Norway they afterwards complained,
especially the Radicals, of that »Massive instrument.»
[27:1] In the debate in the Storthing on April 27:th 1904 Mr CARL BERNER
said he had heard that Mr BLEHR'S explanation in the Storthing
respecting; the Communiqué before its publication was made known to the
Swedish government: that the latter, neither previously, nor later on,
had made any objections to it. To this State Secretary MICHELSEN sharply
replied, that »Mr BLEHR'S explanation was only the explanation of the
Norwegian government on the subject of the Communiqué.»
[27:2] Further affirmation is given by Mr IBSEN'S declaration in the
Storthing, that the negotiations fell through in consequence of Mr
BOSTRÖM'S opposition to the request of the Norwegian delegates that in
the Communiqué it should be mentioned that the identical laws were to be
valid only »so long as the present system of foreign administration
existed.» When, finally, the Norwegians consented to omit this condition,
it could only have been their intention that the laws should only be
valid until by mutual consent they were rescinded. Other explanations in
the Storthing of the divergencies of opinions on this point are to all
intents unacceptable.