In last Saturday's Times Dr. Sven Hedin, the famous Swedish
explorer, examines and criticises the case for Norway as set forth in the same journal by Dr. Nansen, and briefly summarised in our last issue. Dr. Sven Hedin's chief points, omitting his interpretation of the disputed passages in the " Rigsakt" and " Grundlov," are :—(1) The existing Consular arrangements do not, as Dr. Nansen contends, merely prolong a tacit agreement dictated by convenience. They were enacted by the King in Council in a mixed Swedish and Norwegian Council in 1886. (2) Sweden has not abused her opportunities, as is proved by the fact that out of twenty- seven paid Consuls-General, Consuls, and Vice-Consuls at the present moment in the Service, seventeen are Norwegians and only ten are Swedes. (3) The Joint Committee of 1903 was appointed to report on, not the utility or desirableness, but simply the administrative possibility of the scheme of separate Consulships. Dr. Nansen omitted to state that the Swedish Commissioners specially stated that they considered the proposed scheme neither desirable nor helpful. (4) Sweden's aim throughout in endeavouring to preserve the Union intact has been the protection of the Scandinavian Peninsula, while that of Norway has been to burst the bond of Union.
Previous page
