The Swedish-Norwegian Union Crisis Part 14

24.

The address of the Storthing to King Oscar, dated Christiania, June 7, 1905.

Your Majesty,

Whereas all the members of the Cabinet have to-day, in the Storthing, resigned their posts, and whereas Your Majesty in the Protocol of May 27 officially declared that Your Majesty did not see your way clear to create a new Government for the country, the Const.i.tutional Regal power in Norway has thereby become inoperative.

It has therefore been the duty of the Storthing, as the representative of the Norwegian people, without delay to empower the members of the resigning Cabinet to exercise until further notice as the Norwegian Government the power appertaining to the King in accordance with the Const.i.tution of the Kingdom of Norway and the existing laws with the changes which are necessitated by the fact that the union with Sweden, which provides that there shall be a common King, is dissolved in consequence of the fact that the King has ceased to act as King of Norway.

The course of developments, which proved more powerful than the desire and will of the individual, has led to this result.

The union entered into in 1814 has from its first hour been differently interpreted by the two nations both as regards its spirit and letter.

Efforts have been made on the Swedish side to extend the Union, and on the Norwegian side to confine it within the limits laid down in the Act of Union, and otherwise to a.s.sert the independent power of both States in all matters which are not defined in that Act as coming under the Union.

The difference of principle in the interpretation of the character of the Union has provoked much misunderstanding between the two peoples, and has caused much friction. In the interpretation which, during the last negotiations between the two countries, has been laid down by the Swedish Government as against Norway, the Norwegian people were bound to perceive an injury to their const.i.tutional right, their independence, and their national honour.

The Union was justified as long as it could contribute to promoting the welfare and happiness of both peoples, while maintaining their independence as Sovereign States. But above the Union their stands for us Norwegians our Norwegian Fatherland, and for the Swedes their Swedish Fatherland. And more valuable than a political union are the feelings of solidarity and voluntary cohesion of both peoples. The union has become a danger to this feeling of solidarity between the Norwegian and Swedish people which should secure the happiness of both nations and const.i.tute their strength abroad.

When the union is now severed, the Norwegian people have no loftier wish than to live in peace and good harmony with all, not least with the people of Sweden and the dynasty under the direction of which our country, despite many and bitter disputes affecting the union, has attained such important intellectual and material development.

As evidence of the fact that the work and the struggle of the Norwegian people for the full independence of the Fatherland have not been formed on any ill-feeling towards the Royal House or the Swedish people, and have not left behind any bitterness towards any of these, the Storthing respectfully solicits your Majesty's co-operation to the end that a Prince of your Majesty's house may be permitted, while relinquis.h.i.+ng his right of succession to the Throne of Sweden, to accept election as King of Norway.

The day upon which the Norwegian people elect their own King to ascend the ancient throne of Norway will open up an era of tranquil conditions of industry for Norway, of good and cordial relations to the Swedish people, and of peace and concord and loyal co-operation in the north for the protection of the civilization of the people and of their freedom and independence.

In full a.s.surance of this, the Storthing ventures to express the sincere hope, that the present events, will turn out to be for the good of all, also for their Majesties, for whom personally the Norwegian people will preserve their respect and affection.

25.

The King's telegraphic protest against the resolution of the Storthing.

Despatched June 8th 1905.

As We hereby declare that We do not approve of the revolutionary measures which have been deplorably taken by the Storthing in violation of the Const.i.tution and Act of Union, and in revolt against their King, We refuse to receive the deputation proposed by the Storthing.

_Oscar._

26.

Extract of the protocol of Civil business held in Council before His Majesty in the presence of His Royal Highness The Crown Prince at the Royal Palace Stocholm June 9th 1905.

His Excellency Mr. Ramstedt, Prime Minister, stated:

According to information received from Norway the Norwegian Storthing has, on the 7th inst. pa.s.sed the following resolutions:

'The members of the Cabinet having resigned their office and the King having declared himself unable to form a new government; and the Const.i.tutional Sovereign thereby having resigned His powers, the Storthing authorises the members of the Council who resigned this day, to a.s.sume until further notice, as the Norwegian Government, the authority granted to the King according to the Const.i.tution of the Norwegian Kingdom and its valid law--with the changes that become neccessary through the fact that the Union with Sweden under one King is dissolved, in consequence of the King having ceased to Act as King of Norway.'

Through this revolutionary measure, the Storthing has not only without the King's a.s.sistance, but also without referring to Sweden arbitrarily pa.s.sed a resolution respecting the dissolution of a Union which has existed on the grounds of legal mutual agreements between the two countries and cannot without mutual consent be broken.

The Storthing, having thus by this resolution, violated Sweden's prerogative it becomes undeniably necessary that an extra session of the Diet be immediately summoned in order to debate as to what measures should be taken on Sweden's side, with reference to what has thus occurred. Herewith I appeal that Your Majesty will resolve on the summoning of the Diet, at the same time Your Majesty intimates disacknowledgement of the government, proclaimed by the Storthing.

In this address the rest of the members proclaimed themselves unanimous;

And His Majesty the King consented to this, and in accordance with the Prime Minister's recommendation was graciously pleased to decree, by open letter and edict, the import of which are contained in the appendage to this protocol, that the members of both Chambers of the Diet be summoned to an extra session in Stockholm on Tuesday June 20th.

27.

Address from the King to the President of the Storthing.

To the President of the Storthing!

To you, and through you to the Storthing and the entire population of Norway, I address the following words, in answer to the address and decision both of the Norwegian Cabinet and the Storthing:

The oath that the King of Norway takes according to the Const.i.tution -- 9 on his accession to the throne, that he will rule the Kingdom of Norway in accordance with its const.i.tution and law, makes it a kingly duty for Me not to pay any attention to the statement of the Norwegian Cabinet in reference to my decree on May 27th ult., in which I declared, that, for the present, I did not find it suitable to sanction the Storthing's proposal respecting the establishment of a separate Norwegian Consular Service. The Cabinet thereby declared that this decree, being in conflict with the unanimous recommendation of the Norwegian Cabinet would imply a depreciation of a right in accordance with the Norwegian fundamental law, independently to settle the matter in question, and also implied a violation of Norway's freedom, independence and Sovereignty, and at the same time the Cabinet declared that no member of the Ministry then sitting would be willing to countersign My Decree, and thereby, according to the opinion of the Cabinet, give it legislative validity.

The Norwegian King's prerogative, when he thinks the welfare of the kingdom demands it, to refuse His sanction to a proposal presented in due form by the Storthing is unconditional. From this rule, there is no exception even though the Storthing were to present the same resolution ever so many times in precisely the same terms. Meanwhile according to the fundamental law (Const.i.tution -- 79) the decision of the Storthing becomes the law of Norway without the sanction of the King, but in order to accomplish this, are required unaltered resolutions from three Storthings drawn up after three consecutive elections, which resolution must be laid before the King, with an appeal, that His Majesty will not refuse to sanction the resolution, which the Storthing after the most careful considerations, believes to be advantageous. In the case now in hand, there was no question of any such resolution from the Storthing, and therefore the regulation in the fundamental law -- 78: could be suitably applied: If the King sanctions the resolution, He signs it with His superscription, on which it becomes the law. If He does not sanction it, He returns it to the Odelsthing (Lower House) with the declaration that for the present He finds it unsuitable to sanction. And the paragraph continues: The resolution may not again on that occasion be laid before the King by the members of the Storthing then a.s.sembled. By this last mentioned prescription the Const.i.tution has evidently meant to protect the Norwegian King's liberty in the exercise of the legislative powers which are his indisputable right.

My resolve, not to sanction a law providing for a separate Norwegian Consular Service, can consequently not be considered to imply any transgression whatever of the legislative power, which according to the fundamental law is the King's right, not even, if the matter in question happened to be an affair which concerned Norway alone. But on the grounds of the valid Union agreement between Norway and Sweden, it was not only My right, but also My duty as King of Norway to refuse My sanction, for the dissolution of the existing identical Consular Office could only be effected through Norway's consent to free and friendly negotiations concerning agreements for altering the Union on the basis of full equality between the United Kingdoms, to which not only the _Powers Royal_, but also the Diet of Sweden had unanimously themselves agreed.

That such a respect to the demands of the existing Union should imply an attack on Norway's independence and sovereignty, is so much the more unfounded, as the fundamental law explicitly connects Norway's independence with its Union with Sweden. Norway's King must ever hold in sight the 1:st paragraph of its Const.i.tution:

The Kingdom of Norway is a free, self-dependant, integral and independent Kingdom, united with Sweden under one King.

The statement made by the Council that My resolve, not to sanction the Consular law, proposed by the Storthing, would have no legal validity, as none of the members of the Cabinet had found themselves able to countersign the Royal Decree supplies a supposition which I must declare is in conflict with fundamental law. The question of the significance of contrasignature according to Norwegian State law, is not a new question brought up to day, but is older than the present Norwegian Const.i.tution.

It was already solved at the Convention of Eidsvold. A proposal was then made that Countersignature was requisite in order that the King's commands should become valid, but was opposed on the grounds that it was against the general principles of the Const.i.tution for the division of supreme power. The same standpoint was taken in the fundamental law of the 4th November. This opinion was also expressed by the Const.i.tutional Committee without contradiction on two occasions, 1824 and 1839, when the Storthing had even opposed a proposal concerning another matter. The change, which -- 32 in the Const.i.tution has since undergone, gives increased support to the opinion that the Prime Minister's Countersignature is intended for nothing else than a witness that the King has made a Decree of certain import.

And that -- 31 is unconditional in its prescription of the duty of the authorised countersignature of the Prime Minister is a conception that is acceded to by those writers on State law who have framed the Const.i.tution. When the Cabinet quoted an opinion of the Norwegian government in 1847 when the proposal for a new Act of Union was under consideration, the Cabinet has overlooked, firstly, that this opinion, in a manner that applies to Swedish government regulations -- 38, was intended only to refer to orders issued but not the Decree of the King included in the protocol, secondly that the Norwegian Government could not prove that the Norwegian Const.i.tution really provided any law respecting the right to refuse countersignature. The Const.i.tution on the contrary emphatically prescribes in -- 30: But to the King it is reserved the right to form his decision according to His own judgment, and in -- 31: All Commands issued by the King himself (Military Orders excepted) shall be countersigned by the Prime Minister (before 1873 the Norwegian Prime Minister).

That under these circ.u.mstances I feel Myself ent.i.tled to demand respect for a Decree formed by the King of Norway in a Const.i.tutional manner, is a matter for which no one can blame me. The powers which the Const.i.tution grants the King, in order to further the good of the country to the best of his convictions, are not greater than that they ought to be preserved to the supreme power, so that no const.i.tutional practices in conflict with the principles of the fundamental law are introduced, which, according to the explicit prescriptions in -- 112 may not be done, even by an alteration of the fundamental law.

One of the chief principles of the Const.i.tution--the most important of all, in point of fact--is that Norway shall be a Const.i.tutional Monarchy. It is incompatible with this, that the King should sink to be a helpless tool in the hands of His Ministers. If, meanwhile, the members of the Council should have the power, by refusing countersignature, to hinder every future Royal Decree, the Norwegian King would be deprived of partic.i.p.ating in the government. This position would be as lowering to the Monarch as injurious to Norway herself.

To the circ.u.mstances that can thus be adduced against the validity, according to fundamental law, of the Prime Minister's refusal of Countersignature, and against the efficacy of the dogma that the King's Decree in order to be valid, must bear the responsibility of some member of the Cabinet, can be added, in questions touching the Union situation, two more reasons, which have their foundation in the fact that the King of Norway is also King of the Union.

However opinions may have varied, respecting the conception of the unity which the Union agreements have created for the binding together of the two Kingdoms, one fact remains clear, that Royal power is also an inst.i.tution of the Union. This position of the King's as being not only King of Norway or of Sweden, but also as Monarch of the United Kingdoms, makes it the King's duty, not to form decisions in conflict with the Act of Union -- 5, respecting the settlement of matters in one country, which would also affect the other. The King's duty in the aforesaid respect is incompatible with the opinion that the one Kingdom, by the refusal of Countersignature by its Prime Minister or otherwise, could undo a Royal Decree, by which he refused to make a resolution prejudicial to the other Kingdom or injurious to the Union. In Norway, when they endeavoured to adhere to an opposite opinion, when the Norwegian people claimed the right to force the King to form his decision in conflict with what he considers his right as King of the Union to concede, there was no other way of attaining this object than making the Union, and also the King of Sweden, in his actions, totally dependent on the will of the Norwegian people, its Storthing and its Cabinet.