[30:1] Thus, their claim for a separate Consular service was worded in
the Norwegian Moderate party's programme as follows: »Our own Norwegian
Consular Service with the exception of all matters connected with the
relations between the Consular Service and Diplomatic administration is
hereby declared established».
[31:1] N:o 4.
[33:1] N:o 5.
[33:2] Some other points in Mr BOSTRÖM'S Memorandum were rejected by the
Norwegian side. They ran as follows:
1:o Before a Consul was nominated, opportunity should be given to the
Minister for Foreign affairs to make such observations as he might think
necessary.
2:o In the Consular Diploma, the King shall be styled King of Sweden and
Norway--not King of Norway and Sweden, as was the case in Norway--as
these Diplomas are intended for presentation to Foreign powers, and the
King always makes use of this title abroad Foreign powers.
3:o As long as the appointment of separate consuls was not approved of by
Foreign powers and so long as ambassadors in a Foreign conntry had not
been stationed, the joint Consular Service should continue its functions.
--Mr HAGERUP did not refer to these points in his reply partly because
the difficulties of his agreeing on them with Mr BOSTRÖM were not,
according to his own account, so very insurmountable.
[34:1] N:o 6.
[34:2] N:o 7.
[35:1] They are mentioned, for instance, in the Act of Union.
[35:2] It is characteristic that NANSEN in his review of the negotiations
(page 76 and following) does not mention one of the Swedish demands. It
can, however, be safely referred to all, who are impartial on the
subject, as to whether its decisions, as NANSEN (page 77) insists, imply
the subordination of the Norwegian Consular Service to the Swedish
Minister for Foreign affairs on a very extensive scale.
[35:3] In that case, what numbers of legislative rules and regulations
would have remained unwritten!
[36:1] N:o 8.
[36:2] N:o 9