!THE latest news as to the dispute between Sweden and
1_ Norway in regard to the demolition of the frontier fortresses is, we regret to say, far from satisfactory. Sweden insists that her safety is iinperilled by the existence both of the entirely modern works and of the modern additions to old fortresses—i.e., those carried out in both. cases since 1896—and Norway makes it a point of honour not to agree to demolition. The dispute is just one of those in which there are really no merits, and yet where a great many apparently sound arguments can be brought up on either side. For &le, Norway can say : " If we could build the works complained of without .challenge when we were part of a dual kingdom, it: is absurd• to deny us the right to keep them when we have become an entirely independent State." Sweden, on the other hand, can say : "What is the use of having a neutral zone, and agreeing not to waste money on fortifications, if Norway is to be allowed to break the spirit of much an agreenient by maintaining her modern forts ? " Again, it may be urged on the Norwegian side, since Sweden is, on land at any rate, so much the stronger Power, and since the notion of Norway invading Sweden may be dismissed as absurd, bow can the forts hurt Sweden unless she hopes to invade her neighbour ? Forts are defensive, not offensive, weapons of war.
