Norway and the Nobel Peace Prize 9780231887335

Citation preview

NORWAY AND T H E NOBEL PEACE

PRIZE

NORWAY AND THE

N O B E L PEACE PRIZE OSCAR J. FALNES

New York · Morningside Heights COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 1938

PRESS

COPYRIGHT,

1938,

BY COLUMBIA

UNIVERSITY

PRESS

Printed in the United States of America

FOREICN

A CENTS

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, Humphrey Milford, Amen House, London, E.C.4, England, and B. I. Building, Nicol Road, Bombay, India; KWANC HSUEH

PUBLISHING

HOUSE,

140

Peking

Road,

Shanghai,

China;

MARUZEN COMPANY, LTD., 6 Nihonbashi, Tori-Nichome, Tokyo, Japan

To

HANS JACOB

FALNES

and to the memory

OLENA F L A S K E R U D

of

FALNES

PREFACE T H A T local background in the midst of which the Norwegian Storting's Nobel Committee and the Norwegian Nobel Institute have, for nearly four decades, administered the Nobel Peace Prize is the chief concern of this book. It takes as its point of departure some aspects of the Norwegian setting which may have influenced Nobel when he disposed of his Peace Prize, and it remains throughout predominantly historical and biographical in approach. Certain matters relating to the Peace Prize therefore fall almost entirely outside the limits of the present study. Thu9, not much is said, beyond the first chapter, of Alfred Nobel himself. His career and personality are adequately treated in the authoritative biography by Sohlman and Schlick. Likewise, there is little discussion of the relation of Nobel's benefaction to the international peace movement as such. This topic can be followed in Ragnvald Moe's comprehensive study, Le Prix Nobel de la paix et l'Institut Nobel norvégien. In English-speaking countries, those interested at all in the peace movement are pretty well aware that the organized peace movement sprang into prominence in England and the United States in the middle of the nineteenth century. They are less clearly aware of the fact that, outside of these countries, the peace movement registered some phenomenal advances among the Scandinavian peoples in the closing decades of the century. It was not entirely a matter of chance that the foremost prize and honor for service in the cause of international peace should then have been established by a Scandinavian, or that he should have entrusted the preliminary administrative duties to one of the Scandinavian national parliaments. Moreover, the peace

PREFACE

viii

movement today has some of its staunchest supporters in the S c a n d i n a v i a n countries, and some of the gains m a d e here m a y well engage the attention of readers and peace advocates in all Anglo-Saxon countries. Attention m a y here be called to two matters of detail in u s a g e a n d editing. T h e first relates to the fact that Christiania officially became Oslo on J a n u a r y 1, 1 9 2 5 . To the writer it has seemed most correct historically to employ the older n a m e in connection with matters antedating the change, and to use the newer designation f o r those that come later. Secondly, two collections of biographical material have been drawn upon frequently but cited only when special reasons warranted it. They a r e : the jubilee annuals which the University alumni publish on their twenty-fifth (sometimes also l a t e r ) anniversaries under the title Studentene

fra

[1851

] , and Norsk

Biografisk

Leksikon, the definitive dictionary of national biography which is now in progress of publication. T h e present writer is happy to acknowledge several personal f a v o r s . M r . R a g n v a l d Moe, Director of the Nobel

Institute,

called certain p a s s a g e s in question when the work was in the f o r m of a late typescript d r a f t ; he has, however, h a d no opportunity of seeing the work in final f o r m . Other members of the Nobel Committee or the Institute staff who granted generous interviews were P r o f e s s o r H a l v d a n Koht and P r o f e s s o r Wilhelm K e i l h a u . Hints and suggestions of value were tendered by Dr. Chr. L . L a n g e , P r o f e s s o r F r e d r i k Stang, P r o f e s s o r F r a n c i s Bull, a n d M r . 0 . F . Oldfen. T h e two chapters on Bj0rnson and that on the Swedish-Norwegian tension have been read by Mr. Harold L a r s o n of Washington, D. C. F o r much good counsel and support at different stages of the work, the writer is indebted to P r o f e s s o r Carlton J . H . H a y e s of Columbia University. T h e writer is likewise under obligation to several librarians. First a n d foremost he took advantage, on many an occasion, of the effective services of Mr. Selmer-Anderssen at the Library

PREFACE

ix

of the Nobel Institute. At the University Library in Oslo Mr. Wilhelm Munthe and his staff were most accommodating; Mr. Reidar Omang, especially, was helpful in locating certain manuscript materials. At the offices of the Storting, Secretary P. A. Wessel-Berg graciously provided access to the archives of the Norwegian branch of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. The bulk of the materials for the study the writer gathered in the summer of 1934 at these depositories in Oslo; but he has supplemented it with items in the New York Public Library and the Columbia University Library. A few titles in other American libraries were made available through the InterLibrary Loan Service of the Washington Square College Library of New York University. For his very faithful editorial assistance, the writer is grateful to Mr. Henry H. Wiggins of the Press under the imprint of which the work is appearing. Throughout the entire study, from the first tentative readings on the subject to the last page of printer's proof, the writer has all too frequently made claims upon the time and patience of his wife. 0 . J. F. New York City November, 1937.

CONTENTS Part One TWO NORTHERN

I.

LUMINARIES IN THE PEACE NOBEL AND BJ0RNSON

CAUSE:

ALFRED N O B E L : HIS INTEREST IN NORWAY AND IN PEACE

II.

3

B J 0 R N S O N ' S INTEREST IN PEACE

.

.

.

.

16

Part Two THE PEACE MOVEMENT

IN

NORWAY

III.

T H E PEACE MOVEMENT AND OTHER LIBERAL CAUSES

33

IV.

EARLY EFFORTS TO ORGANIZE

46

V. VI.

.

.

.

.

T H E NORWEGIAN PEACE UNION: EARLIER PERIOD .

55

T H E PEACE UNION: A GENERAL SURVEY .

70

.

.

Part Three THE STORTING VII.

AND THE PEACE

CAUSE

T H E SWEDISH-NORWEGIAN TENSION ( 1 8 9 2 - 9 5 ) LATER POLITICAL DEVELOPMENTS

VIII.

THE

STORTING

SUPPORTS

.

VARIOUS

AND

.

PEACE

EN-

DEAVORS IX.

85

.

102

PEACE AND UNIONIST POLITICS

.

.

.

. 1 1 7

Part Four THE STORTING'S NOBEL COMMITTEE AND NORWEGIAN NOBEL INSTITUTE X. XI.

THE

IMPLEMENTING NOBEL'S WILL

.

.

.

.

135

PLANS FOR A NOBEL INSTITUTE

.

.

.

.

147

CONTENTS

xii XII.

164

T H E I N S T I T U T E IN ITS ADVISORY CAPACITY

180

XIII.

DIRECT S Ü P P O R T O F T H E P E A C E CAUSE .

XIV.

B J 0 R N S O N AND T H E N O B E L C O M M I T T E E

191

XV.

PERSONNEL OF THE COMMITTEE

.

207

XVI.

CANDIDATES AND PRIZE WINNERS

.

231

Part CENSURE

Five

AND

APPRAISAL

XVII.

CRITICISM, S P E C I F I C AND G E N E R A L

247

XVIII.

T H E BACKGROUND RECONSIDERED .

272

APPENDICES A.

EXTRACT FROM N O B E L ' S W I L L

B.

SPECIAL STATUTES O F T H E C O M M I T T E E AND T H E INSTI-

291

C.

DECISIONS ON PRIZES

D.

SUBSIDIES GRANTED BY T H E S T O R T I N G ' S N O B E L

TUTE

MITTEE 1 9 3 1 - 3 6

292 295 COM298

BIBLIOGRAPHY

301

INDEX

321

PART ONE TWO NORTHERN LUMINARIES IN THE PEACE NOBEL AND

BJ0RNSON

CAUSE:

I ALFRED NOBEL: HIS INTEREST

IN

N O R W A Y A N D IN P E A C E THAT the family name of Nobel should have become closely identified with the ideal of world peace is a circumstance not without its element of irony. The family's reputation was first associated not with the arts of peace but with the arts of war, indeed "with the most frightful instruments of destruction." A number of the inventions and appliances which play a part in modern preparedness and war owe their inception to information and procedures originally made available by the Nobels. IMPROVEMENT IN WAR TECHNIQUES

This aspect of the family's genius was its earliest, and for a time, its primary claim to renown. The father, Immanuel, had migrated in the early forties from Sweden to Russia, where his mechanical ingenuity apparently met with larger rewards at the hands of Czar Nicholas's government than could be realized in Sweden. For a time, he experimented with exploding mines, suitable for use on sea as well as on land. As manufactured by the Russians, these appliances did not prove very effective, but during the Crimean War, under the direction of Immanuel Nobel's eldest son, Robert, they had a very real part in keeping the British out of Finnish waters.1 During the same conflict, Immanuel Nobel himself was constructing engines for the Russian navy—an important service, since Russia had no skilled experts and no effective designs with which to do her own manufacturing, while the current hostilities cut her off from 1 Ragnar Sohlman and Henrik Schück, Nobel: Dynamite and Peace (New York, 1929), p. 40.

NOBEL'S

4

INTEREST

IN

PEACE

foreign supplies of machinery and raw materials. The outcome of the war left the elder Nobel a ruined man financially, and he returned to his native Sweden. One of his last essays in invention was his effort to perfect a piece of ordnance, presumably " f o r the defense of old Mother Svea in her present defenseless condition." 2 Three of his sons, Ludwig, Robert and Alfred, remained in Russia after their father's return to Sweden. Ludwig, having become a manufacturer of machinery, firearms, and heavier ordnance, delivered nearly half a million rifles to the Russian government in less than a decade. His desire to locate an improyed type of walnut wood for rifle stocks led his brother Robert, in 1873, to make a trip to the region of the Caucasus. It was on this trip that Robert, who had moved to Finland and had become interested in the manufacture of lamps and the refining of oil and petroleum, became aware of the possibilities of improving the naphtha production at Baku on the Caspian. The two brothers, as a result, set about to exploit the Baku oil fields and in the process helped to establish a new world-industry. It was through the inventive activities of the youngest son, Alfred Bernhard Nobel ( 1 8 3 3 - 9 6 ) , that the family became most conspicuously associated with the manufacture of explosives and war materials. About 1 8 6 3 , shortly after returning to Sweden to join his father, he made his first improvements in the use of gunpowder and nitroglycerin. Like many of his later inventions, these contributions were of most immediate importance, of course, to military science. In England alone, in the course of his busy career, he took out something like 1 2 0 patents, and a glance at the list will show that quite a number were of a military character.^ No less than 2 5 dealt with direct improvements in firearms, ordnance, or armor-plate, while 4 5 pertained to improvements in explosives, notably in the use of dynamite, nitroglycerin, and smokeless powder. 2

Ibid., p. 54.

3 ¡bid., pp. 261-91.

N O B E L ' S I N T E R E S T IN P E A C E

5

High explosives are not necessarily instruments of war, of course, and Nobel hardly set out to specialize on the improvement of military science as such. But the fact—the very lamentable fact—is that they have been used, and are being used, most assiduously, not for the arts of peace but for those of war. In the nature of things, therefore, it has turned out that a goodly portion of the product of Nobel's inventive genius has been directly appropriated to the uses of the armed peace and the war in the field. It was necessary to form a number of companies to exploit Nobel's inventions, and no small part of their income was derived from the making of products which directly or ultimately served as materials or munitions of war. The Nobel fortune as it is today, however—and this should perhaps be added at once—is not interested in the armament industry, being composed mainly of holdings of government obligations and various types of industrial stocks. PERSONALITY AND CHARACTER OF NOBEL

Though his activities as an inventor and his business interest brought him into close association with the arts of war, Alfred Nobel was decidedly not a man of bellicose impulses.4 He was a sensitive soul, shy, lonely, and pessimistic. His health was not good, and he now and then gave himself over to self-pity and to misanthropic observations on the many dubious antics of the human race. Quite obviously, he had but a low opinion of 4

The standard account of Nobel's life is that of Ragnar Sohlman and Henrik Schiick, published by the Nobel Foundation as Alfred Nobel och hans Slâkt (Stockholm, 1926). Translations include one into German (Leipzig, 1928) and one into English (London and New York, 1929). Citations in this study are from the American edition entitled Nobel: Dynamite and Peace. See also Ragnvald Moe, Le Prix Nobel de la paix et Γ Institut Nobel norvégien (O9I0, 1932), Vol. I, especially pp. 1-30; J. H. Nauckhoff, Alfred Nobel: Hans Liv och Uppfinningar, Studenterföreningen Verdandis Smâskrifter, No. 334 (Stockholm, 1929) ; Richard Hennig, Alfred Nobel, der Erfinder des Dynamits und Gründer der Nobelstiftung (Stuttgart, [1912]). Among the many sketches, two in English may be mentioned, those by Yngve Hedvall and John Landquist, respectively, in the American-Scandinavian Review, Vol. XIV, pp. 91-96, and Vol. XXI, pp. 472-81.

6

NOBEL'S

INTEREST

IN

PEACE

the masses of men. 5 The right of the ballot, he maintained, should be the privilege of the educated; hence he was opposed to general suffrage. The rising democratic tide made him skeptical. He seemed to see a new tyranny looming up, a dictatorship of "the dregs of the population." In other days, he conceded, governments may have been more aggressive than their subjects, "but nowadays it seems as though the governments were striving to tranquilize the idiotic passions of a public that are roused by pernicious p a p e r s . " The history of the arbitration cause seemed to tell him that " i f the nations are still nearly mad the governments are no more than half m a d . " 8 This preference for governments should be borne in mind when we discuss some of Nobel's ideas for translating peace aims into practice. Yet, pessimistic as he was about himself and about his fellow men, Nobel had in his temperament a strain of incorruptible optimism. He responded most readily to the idealism expressed in literature. 7 In his youth he considered literature as a career, and he became devoted especially to the idealism and the pacifism of the English poet Shelley. He wrote some poetry worthy of attention and made drafts of a novel or two. And in the twilight of his days he turned to the drama, attempting both a comedy and a tragedy, the latter actually being put in print. 8 Literary realism was in the ascendant in his day, but Nobel preferred the idealistic trend of such contemporary writers as Viktor Rydberg, Selma Lagerlöf and Bj0rnstjerne Bj0rnson. There was much to nourish such idealism in the optimism characteristic of the age, for the nineteenth century was the great century of progress—progress, it seemed, in every field of human endeavor. Even man himself seemed in line for Cf. R. Sohlman and H. Schuck, op. cit., pp. 212, 216, 232, 236. Ibid., pp. 230, 231 ; cf. pp. 224-5. See also the Memoirs of Bertha von Suttner (2 vols., Boston, 1910), Vol. I, p. 387. 7 Ibid., pp. 203-22. 8 But never published, as all but three of ihe copies were deliberately destroyed. Mimeographed reproductions are available. 5

6

N O B E L ' S I N T E R E S T IN P E A C E

7

fundamental improvement. "Every new discovery," Nobel once wrote to Baroness Bertha von Suttner, "modifies the human brain and makes the new generation capable of receiving new ideas." ' NOBEL'S INTEREST IN THE PEACE CAUSE

So many reforms and causes were being carried through to triumph in Nobel's time that it seemed legitimate to hope for the ultimate victory of the peace ideal as well. The prevailing intellectual currents of the second half of the century—Comtean positivism, Darwinian evolution, and literary realism—were favorable, in so far as they exalted reason and a moral order, to the idea of international peace. The peace sentiment became organized, and the peace endeavors rose to high levels, in the late eighties and early nineties. The first Universal Peace Congress met, and an Inter-Parliamentary Union took shape. In 1889 Bertha von Suttner published her stimulating book, Die Waffen Nieder ("Lay Down Your Arms"), which aroused interest in the peace cause in many quarters. The Baroness claimed to have been the decisive influence in directing Nobel's interest to the peace cause, but her claim is convincing only in part. For Nobel's interest in peace was related to a number of circumstances. In the first place, quite obviously, there was the anomaly in his personal position. By profession and business interest he was in the midst of activities whose end-products often were munitions of war and instruments of destruction. Sensitive as he was, he could hardly help but feel that he had a share in the growing tension of the armed peace. There was an incongruity between his scientific labor and his humanitarian interest, and what misgivings he had on that point could find at least partial compensation in an active support of peace endeavors. 9

The Memoirs of Bertha von Suttner, Vol. I, p. 437.

8

NOBEL'S

INTEREST

IN

PEACE

But Nobel's interest in peace was much more than an escape mechanism, being related to personal and social impulses that were broad and deep. There was, for instance, his faith in progress, progress not too closely defined but implying the triumph of a number of "causes." To Nobel, as to many of his contemporaries, it seemed at times that peace was not something to be worked for in isolation, not a unique goal, but one to be attained in common with a number of other social benefits. What Nobel was chiefly concerned to promote with his benefactions was "progress." In 1893, for instance, he had in mind to use the bulk of his fortune for a fund whose income should constitute an annual prize "for the most important and original discoveries or intellectual achievements in the wide field of knowledge and progress," preference to be given those who were successful "in word and deed" in combating the prejudices against a European peace tribunal. 10 So approached, peace was seen definitely as an auxiliary aspect of progress. It was, of course, in the last decade of his life that Nobel's interest in peace became pronounced, but a latent interest antedated this. We know that he had early taken note of Shelley's pacifism. And he may have given more than passing attention to a letter from his father, dated 1 8 7 1 , in which old Immanuel, whose aspirations sometimes far outdistanced his talents and resources, wrote that he was working on a discovery that would make him " a dictator in matters of peace and war throughout the whole world, for the next few centuries at least." 11 The son was long convinced that he could aid the cause of peace by making war more and more destructive through the improvement of its technology. " M y factories may end war sooner than your congresses," he wrote to Bertha von Suttner in the early nineties. " T h e day when two army corps will be 1 0 These "prejudices" had been of concern to him earlier. Cf. ibid., Vol. I, p. 388. 1 1 R. Sohlman and H. Schlick, op. cit., p. 47.

N O B E L ' S I N T E R E S T IN P E A C E

9

able to destroy each other in one second," he promised in another passage, "all civilized nations will recoil from war in horror and disband their armies." 12 In the light of the things that have happened since Nobel's day, the thought seems an impudent mockery; yet, after all, "death ray" inventors of our own decade are professedly working to the same end ! For a long time, apparently, Nobel assumed that the combating of war with terror would be advanced chiefly through the perfecting of high explosives. But by 1890, if we may trust the conversation reported by " a friend," he had developed misgivings on this matter.13 A mere increase in the deadliness of armaments, he perceived, would not bring peace. The difficulty, as he analyzed it, was that the action of explosives was too limited in space to be effective as a war deterrent (aerial bombardment was, of course, unknown to Nobel). In order to overcome this deficiency, war must be made as deadly for all the civilians back home as for the troops in the front lines: "Let the sword of Damocles hang over every head and you will witness a miracle. War will instantly stop." The weapon to accomplish this, thought Nobel, would be provided by bacteriology. With the aid of this science it would be possible to breed disease-spreading germs in quantity, and then by mechanical means to spray them freely into the midst of civilian pursuits everywhere. Out of the ensuing universal terror would then rise the ubiquitous cry for peace. But even this contemplated triumph of science left Nobel with hopes by no means oversanguine, as well it might. " I greatly fear," he is supposed to have said in the conversation referred to, "that the perpetual peace of which Kant has spoken will be preceded by the peace of the cemetery." But in spite of his deep misgivings—and in this connection 12 Ibid., p. 227; he may have entertained such an idea as early as 1S76. Cf. R. Hennig, op. cit., p. 23. 1 3 "How Wars Will Come to an End," The Forum, Vol. LXXIV, August, 1925, pp. 194-98.

10

N O B E L ' S I N T E R E S T IN

PEACE

the influence of the Baroness von Suttner seems to have been decisive—Nobel came in the early nineties to regard the organized peace efforts with less disfavor. He had no faith in the clamor for disarmament and thought it equally impractical to agitate outright for obligatory arbitration or for an arbitration tribunal. But he had come to think by 1 8 9 1 that a small beginning could be made. W h y not do as the English? he asked. When they had under consideration a policy which might not yet command sufficient approval, they first tried it out for a year or two. W h y not have the European states agree to settle disputes by arbitration for only one year? So well pleased would they be, he thought, that at the end of the year they would prolong the arrangement, and prolong it again. Gradually a regime of peace would arrive almost unobserved. Yet suppose that in spite of everything, a quarrel should break out between two governments. Nobel was inclined to think that they would calm down during "the obligatory armistice which they would have to respect"—a somewhat gratuitous assumption on his part, in view of the eagerness of governments to strike early when trouble impends. By 1 8 9 3 Nobel believed he saw possibilities in what we today call collective security. He thought it ought to be feasible to get the states to agree, without too much delay, to turn with solidarity against the first aggressor. If the recently-formed Triple Alliance could be extended to all states, he suggested, peace would be assured. 1 * N O B E L ' S I N T E R E S T IN N O R W A Y

When Nobel finally made up his mind to give pecuniary aid to the peace cause, he was for a time in doubt about the form that aid should take. He considered several possibilities, for example: direct subventions to peace congresses, the support 14 Memoirs oj Bertha 1891, and Jan. 7, 1893.

von Suttner,

Vol. I, pp. 388, 438-39, letters of Oct. 31,

N O B E L ' S I N T E R E S T IN P E A C E

11

of a peace propaganda bureau at Paris, or the subsidizing of a newspaper. In the end he decided upon a peace prize. When he first came to this conclusion we do not know. In a letter of January 7, 1893, to Bertha von Suttner, he referred definitely to his intention of using part of his fortune to distribute a peace prize every five years. But the resolution was older, if we can trust the interview of 1890, during which he remarked: I intend to leave after my death a large fund for the promotion of the peace idea, but I am skeptical as to its results. The savants will write excellent volumes. There will be laureates. But wars will continue just the same until the force of circumstances renders them impossible.15

Having decided to implement his interest in peace by providing a generous peace prize, Nobel chose to leave its implementation in the hands of the Norwegian Storting. Why he, a Swedish subject, should designate for this purpose a Norwegian agency is a point not easily answered. But certain considerations evidently entered into his calculations, whatever the relative importance of each. First, and perhaps least significant, may have been a touch of patriotism—patriotism in a somewhat extended sense, coincident with peninsular Scandinavia. Sweden was his country, but Sweden was a part of a larger political entity, the Swedish-Norwegian Union. The latter was a sort of second fatherland, having as symbols a common king and a common administration of foreign and consular affairs. A Norwegian's primary loyalty went, of course, to Norway; a Swede's to Sweden. Each, however, could feel that his first loyalty was surrounded by the concentric band of a secondary loyalty, namely that owed to the Swedish-Norwegian Union— and to a person like Nobel the object of the secondary loyalty might be more closely identified with traditions of peace than the object of his primary loyalty. Furthermore, an attachment " The Forum,

Vol. LXXIV, August, 1925, p. 196.

12

NOBEL'S INTEREST IN

PEACE

for some Norwegian things might, to a Swede in his position, seem well within the circle of legitimate patriotism. A second factor which may have led Nobel to favor a Norwegian agency was his interest in the Norwegian poet and publicist, Bj0rnstjerne Bj0rnson. Though he apparently had little liking for Bj0rnson personally, he may have admired the Norwegian's unremitting service as a publicist on any and every sector of the front of liberalism and progress. Certainly he revered Bj0rnson's literary work for the degree of idealism it championed in the midst of the prevailing realism, much as in his youth he had admired the idealism of Shelley. In many ways, of course, Bj0rnson was a realist, but his realism had an idealistic bent which carried him away from the heavy naturalism, for which Nobel felt no affinity, of a Zola, a Dostoievsky, or a Tolstoy. Above all, perhaps, Nobel admired Bj0rnson for his championship of the peace cause. It is worth noting that Bj0rnson's proposal for arbitration, in the midst of the Swedish-Norwegian conflict of 1895 (of which we are to hear more later), preceded the final draft of Nobel's will by only a few months. NOBEL'S CHOICE OF T H E STORTING AS SPONSOR OF A PRIZE

COMMITTEE

We may pursue our main inquiry further and suggest a few probable reasons why Nobel placed the Prize committee in the care of the Storting and not in the hands of some other Norwegian agency. First, let it be recalled that he had less confidence in the masses of men than in their governments. He expected the major steps toward peace to be taken not by the people—he never was very deeply impressed by the mass propagandist technique—but by the governments. So far as he held out any hope for definite advances toward peace through arbitration, he recognized that the decisive steps must be taken by sovereign states. Governments, he reasoned, might at first

NOBEL'S

INTEREST

IN P E A C E

13

be induced to adopt arbitration for limited periods. Later they might come around to the idea of guaranteeing collective security—"all states should bind themselves absolutely to take action against the first aggressor." But what signs were there that governments really would take arbitration seriously? Beyond much doubt, the most promising steps, in the nineties, were being taken by the Norwegian Storting. As early as 1 8 9 0 , it had gone unequivocally on record in favor of international arbitration, and in the years just following it had given palpable proof, as it began to appropriate moneys for international peace work, that its intentions were genuine. And when Norwegian initiative in such matters was thwarted mainly by Swedish lukewarmness and inertia, 17 as sometimes happened, the effect may not have been lost on a man of Nobel's bent and temperament. We are to consider below 18 the Storting's attitude during the Swedish-Norwegian tension of 1893-95, but enough may be said of it here to indicate that the exigencies of that tension may have been decisive in directing Nobel's attention to the Norwegian parliament. 19 Relations between the two brother peoples became especially strained in the first half of 1895, when threats and preparations seemed to be carrying them toward open war. But at a most critical juncture a majority of the Storting, feeling the drift toward war inherent in prevailing policies, swallowed a measure of its pride and offered to negotiate disputed questions on a fresh basis. It is almost a certainty that these critical events had some influence on Nobel when he came to make his final will. That instrument was drawn in November, 1895, but there is known to us an earlier will of March, 1893. The two wills are noticeably divergent in some of their provisions, and a comparison R. Sohlman and H. Schiick, op. cit., p. 233. Cf. infra, pp. 120-22. 1 8 Cf. infra, pp. 90-95. ι» Halvdan Koht, "Alfred Nobel og Noreg," Den Hie 1β

17

Mai, Oct. 23, 1933.

14

NOBEL'S INTEREST IN PEACE

will show how the crisis in Union affairs may have had its effect on Nobel. The earlier instrument, after allotting about 20 percent of his property to various friends and relatives, bequeathed another 17 percent to several societies and institutions, namely, the Caroline Institute, the Stockholm Hospital, the Stockholm High School, the Swedish Club in Paris, and the Austrian Society of the Friends of Peace at Vienna; the latter was to use its share for "the promotion of pacific ideas." The residue of the estate, some 63 percent, was left to the A c a d e m y of S c i e n c e s at S t o c k h o l m f o r the p u r p o s e of f o r m i n g a f u n d , the interest on which s h a l l be d i s t r i b u t e d by the A c a d e m y each y e a r a s a r e w a r d f o r the m o s t i m p o r t a n t a n d o r i g i n a l d i s c o v e r i e s or intellectual achievements in the wide field of k n o w l e d g e a n d p r o g r e s s , e x c l u d i n g p h y s i o l o g y a n d m e d i c i n e . A l t h o u g h I do not m a k e it an a b s o l u t e condition it is m y wish that such p e r s o n s s h o u l d b e e s p e c i a l l y c o n s i d e r e d a s a r e s u c c e s s f u l in word a n d d e e d in c o m b a t i n g the p e c u l i a r p r e j u d i c e s still c h e r i s h e d by p e o p l e s a n d g o v e r n m e n t s a g a i n s t the ina u g u r a t i o n of a E u r o p e a n p e a c e t r i b u n a l . 2 0

The second will, bearing the date November 27, 1895, was in some respects a less effective instrument, since it failed to indicate any definite trustees for the will. But it clearly specified five distinct prizes to be distributed each year—prizes in physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, literature, and international peace. Where the earlier will had specified that account be taken of the individual who had labored to combat the current prejudices against " a European peace tribunal," the later document did not refer directly to any such tribunal, but specified that the award should go to the person who had "worked most effectively in the interest of the brotherhood of nations, the elimination or reduction of standing armies, and the institution and popularization of peace congresses. 21 Except R. A Nordisk and in p. 244. 21

Sohlman and H. Schiick, op. cit., p. 241. facsimile of the relevant clauses in the will may be consulted in the Familjebok, Encyklopedi och Konversationslexikon, Vol. XIV, pp. 1063-64; Sohlman and Schiick, The Life of Alfred Nobel (London, 1929), opposite Cf. infra, p. 291.

N O B E L ' S I N T E R E S T IN

PEACE

15

for a small triennial award to be made by the Caroline Institute, Nobel in 1893 had left the prize awarding to the Stockholm Academy of Sciences. In 1895, however, he assigned similar tasks to several additional bodies, going so far, in the case of the Peace Prize, as to designate a non-Swedish body, namely a committee of five persons chosen by the Norwegian Storting. In the intervening two and a half years, something had strengthened in Nobel's mind his association of the Storting with the peace cause. Though we have no direct disclosure as to what this was, we cannot help but recall the events of 1895. Before the threat of military force by Sweden, the Norwegian Storting had backed down and sought peace. And ominously enough—this too Nobel may have noticed—it had simultaneously begun an ambitious armament program, as if at some future date it meant to back up its demands with military force. 22 The Swedish militarists in turn responded, and there loomed up the prospect of a Scandinavian armament race. It may not be too farfetched, therefore, to think that when Nobel drafted his second will he knew something of the Storting's flattering peace record and had some impression of the critical decisions, both pacific and militarist, which it took in the year 1895. Quite possibly, he saw a chance to stay the rising armament sentiment in Norway and simultaneously to strike a blow at the more bellicose of his own countrymen. At any rate, he placed the responsibility for the body that was to administer his distinguished Peace Prize in the hands, not of a Swedish agency, but of the Norwegian Storting—that is, in the hands of a national parliament which in a supreme test had chosen peace. 23 « Cf. infra, pp. 94-96. 23 The will had in certain quarters an effect quite the opposite of what Nobel intended. Some of the Swedish conservatives feared that the Storting would use the Peace Prize to "bribe" other countries, and their fears were hardly quieted after Bjftrnson was chosen a member of the Committee. See Memoirs of Bertha von Suttner, Vol. II, p. 146, letter of April 13, 1898, from R. Sohlman. Cf. infra, p. 255.

II B J 0 R N S O N ' S I N T E R E S T IN P E A C E favorable impression of Norway and its Storting was, as we have seen, the product of several factors, among them the activities of the poet Bj0rnson. He was, by the closing decade of the century, the country's most distinguished figure in the service of the peace cause. No less than Nobel, he merits a separate chapter at the outset of our study. NOBEL'S

GENERAL ASPECTS OF B J 0 R N S O N ' S CAREER

Bj0rnstjerne (Martinius) Bj0rnson (1832-1910) lived to become a national chieftain of his people,1 a living symbol of all that is virile and vital in Norwegian patriotism. By means of pen and voice he strove for half a century to lift his fellow citizens to higher levels of patriotism and humanitarianism as he understood these virtues. He contributed something to almost every genre of literature, palpably enriching the field of the novel, the drama, the pure lyric, and the patriotic ode. He was an eager polemicist and for decades took part in a wide range of controversy, showering his compatriots with contributions on all sorts of subjects. He was ever prepared to defend nationalism, liberalism, and progress, wherever they seemed threatened, or to work for their positive advancement. His gifts 1 The literature on Bj0rnson has grown to enormous proportions. A good introduction is the booklet by Francie Bull, Björnstjerne Björnson (Christiania, 1923), which contains a select bibliography. Among the recent materials may be mentioned B. Bj0rnson, Samlede Vœrker (centenary ed., 13 vols., Oslo, 1932) ; J. Lescoffier, [Björnson: La seconde jeunesse?] Essai sur dix années de la vie de Björnstjerne Björnson 1868-1878 (Paris, 1932). A recent work by A. 0verâs, I Bjfrnsons Fotejar (Oslo, 1936), has not been available to the present writer. The latter has been able to consult the manuscript of a painstaking study by Harold Larson, which is soon to be published under the title Björnstjerne Björnson: Norwegian Nationalist; it will contain much material of interest to the student of Bjjtrnson's service to the peace cause.

B J 0 R N S O N ' S I N T E R E S T IN PEACE

17

as a lecturer and an agitator were beyond dispute, but he had little desire for responsible office. He was at his best when stirring up interest in a cause, kindling the spirit that could be trusted to carry it to victory. Bj0rnson was, however, more than a good nationalist and patriot. The range of his sympathies and the amplitude of his genius carried his interests far beyond the boundaries of a single nationality and made of him a cosmopolitan and a European. His private correspondence was prodigious: a rough estimate has put the number of his letters at 30,000! He was often abroad, and he gained a first-hand knowledge of what we may call the central sweep of Europe—Germany, Austria, Italy, Switzerland, and France, not to mention Denmark and Sweden. Good nationalist as he was, he became also a good European; by the turn of the century he had gained an international following.2 The press of two continents was eventually open to him, so that he could dwell in lengthy correspondences upon the latest Scandinavian literary developments or plead Norway's case in the controversy with Sweden. In the second half of his career Bj0rnson chose to make himself a champion of the oppressed and persecuted everywhere, whether they were individuals or nationalities, and by the close of the century he had become the ever-alert conscience of Europe. He enthusiastically supported Zola in the Dreyfus affair, and it was in the main his efforts which finally brought the acquittal of Linda Murri, an Italian lady who had been accused of murdering her husband. He set himself to argue resolutely against Russia's centralizing policy in Finland after 1903; he pleaded for the rights of the Danes in Slesvig and of the Ruthenians in Galicia. He made almost a cause célèbre of the Magyar repression of the Slovaks. He became renowned 2 There is a suggestive sketch on this aspect of his career by F. C. Wildhagen, "Bj0rneon og Europa," Nordisk Tidskrift for Vetenskap, ¡Const och Industri, Vol. I,' pp. 561-73.

18

BJ0RNSON'S

INTEREST

IN

PEACE

in America as well as Europe, and f o r a time he was certainly better known than his illustrious compatriot, the critic

and

dramatist Ibsen. Y e t today Bj0rnson's one-time international reputation has been overtaken by a kind of public amnesia. H e remains, of course, the great national chieftain of his own people, but in our post-War day his name is no longer f a m i l i a r to the cultured public of Western civilization at large. Even the celebration of the centennial of his birth, in 1932, failed to stir any wide interest in the American public outside of limited ScandinavianAmerican circles. But this absence of renown today is no measure of the commanding position he held in public opinion in the nineties, when A l f r e d Nobel, as we have seen/ was among those who admired him as a worthy champion of liberal causes. BJ0KNSON'S

INTEREST

IN

SCANDINAVIANISM

Inadequate as it is, the foregoing section must suffice f o r a general characterization of Bj0rnson's work. W e pass now to a consideration of his relation to several special matters which are of importance f o r our study. W e may select first his interest in Scandinavianism. This movement, looking to closer political, cultural, military,

and

perhaps

even

economic,

cooperation

among the three Northern peoples, had been fashionable around the mid-century—the dynasties had then lent it their active support—but it was discredited after Prussia's defeat of Denmark in 1864. A t least, political Scandinavianism was discredited; shreds of cultural Scandinavianism lingered on to be given interpretations varying more or less with the individuals who still entertained it. Bj0rnson's interest

in Scandinavianism

took

its

direction

f r o m two currents. In the first place, he early became deeply interested in the national romanticist 3

Cf. supra,

pp. 6, 12.

(and religious)

move-

B J 0 R N S O N ' S I N T E R E S T IN P E A C E

19

ment of Grundtvigianism,4 so deeply that when its famous Danish founder died in the early seventies, many expected that its leadership would devolve upon Bj0rnson. What especially attracted him to the movement was Grundtvig's avowed intention of rejuvenating the "old Northern spirit." In the second place, Bj0rnson became vitally interested in a movement to set up a republic in the North. The leading figure in this movement was the Danish pacifist, Fredrik Bajer (1837-1922), who took steps in 1870 to organize a Nordens Fristatssamfund ("Free State Government of the North"). The main line of thought seems to have been that since, in the matter of Scandinavianism, the dynasties had failed, steps should be taken to prepare for the day when the ( republican ) free-state idea, then sweeping over Europe, should reach the North, so that the transition to a republic might be made peacefully.5 A periodical, for which Bj0mson wrote, was launched to agitate for the movement, but it proved short-lived." Two assumptions were basic to the point of view of this movement. One—a heritage from mid-century Scandinavianism— was that the coming republic would be a state including the entire Scandinavian North.7 The other—to be made familiar in another connection 8—was that a victory over the courts and dynasties by republicanism would be equivalent to a victory of democracy over aristocracy and bureaucracy, a victory of peace over militarism. Bj0rnson made himself the spokesman of these republican tendencies in Norway. More and more, in the seventies, he * A term which may be applied to the fruitful impulses which took their point of departure from the famous Danish bishop, educator, poet, and patriot, N. F. S. Grundtvig (1783-1872). 5 Fredrik Bajer, Fredrik Bajer's Livserindringer (Copenhagen, 1909), pp. 376-78. 6 Skandinaven. : Republikansk Tidskrift för Nordens Enhet, Nos. 1-8 (Linköping,

1880-81).

? Cf. Fredrik Bajer, Norden Infra, pp. 41-43.

8

som Republik

(Stockholm, 1879).

20

B J 0 R N S O N ' S I N T E R E S T IN P E A C E

came to think that the Northern racial stock—his estimate of this stock remained very high "—had a duty and political destiny which obligated it to create a "free" society, builded on faith and love of fatherland.10 The Scandinavian North, he thought, was destined to establish a peculiarly Christian democracy, a model for the rest of Europe. His drama of 1877, Köngen ("The King"), was none too flattering to monarchy, and conservatives were aroused in 1880 when he lectured to sympathetic audiences on "the republic." 11 While on his American tour in 1880-81, he sent back dispatches enthusiastically praising republicanism as he saw it in operation in the restless republic of the West. And when, shortly after his return, he was chosen to speak on the 17th of May at the unveiling of a statue of the great national leader Wergeland, there were people throughout the North who wondered whether he would take this occasion to proclaim "the republic." 12 RELATIONS WITH DENMARK AND WITH SWEDEN

We pass now from Scandinavian politics as such to take note of Bj0rnson's relations with Sweden and Denmark. Deep and lasting were the bonds that came to unite him to the Danes,13 bonds drawing strength partly from his interest in Grundtvigianism, partly from his championship of the cause of the Slesvigers, and partly from certain very close personal friendships, particularly that of his faithful publisher, Fr. Hegel, in Copenhagen. There were times when he could feel that he had a more sympathetic public in Denmark than in his own country. In the seventies, it is true, that public became somewhat cool to him. For one reason, he espoused the cause of the Icelanders, •B. Bj0meon, Artikler og Taler (2 vols., Christiania and Copenhagen, 1912-13), Vol. II, p. 468. 1 0 F. Bull, op. cit., p. 37. 1 1 B. Bj0mson, Af mine Foredrag om Republiken (Christiania, 1880). 1 2 Hikon L^ken, Urolige Tider (Christiania, 1923), p. 143; cf. p. 148. 1 3 Cf. V. Andersen, "Bj0rnson og Danmark," Tilskueren, Vol. L, pp. 18-30.

B J 0 R N S O N ' S I N T E R E S T IN PEACE

21

who were demanding autonomy. For another—in seeming contradiction of the unequivocal tone in which he had summoned his countrymen, in 1864, to aid Denmark and to help defend the southern boundary of "the North"—he began to call for reconciliation with Prussia. This was asking a great deal, but he insisted that since Denmark was the wronged party, she could most gracefully extend the hand of reconciliation. For the time being, many of his Danish admirers were deeply pained; as the decades wore on, however, he recovered his old hold upon their sympathies. After all, he never ceased to plead for better treatment of the Slesvigers. With the Swedish public his relations were by and large less cordial and more spasmodic. This was almost inevitable, given the exigencies of the controversy over the Swedish-Norwegian Union. Bj0rnson was a sterling patriot, on the alert to assert Norway's every just claim, and anxious to define more specifically her rights and obligations within the existing Union. His attitude on the relations between the two peoples had certain corollaries and reservations, so that a single statement must do violence to one phase of it or another. Perhaps, however, the essence of it will be made clear by saying that he was quite dissatisfied with the Union that existed and quite convinced that it needed to be adjusted, modified, or perhaps altogether abandoned, in favor of another arrangement. Yet he insisted—and here critics as well as admirers were apt to misinterpret him—that there must be a Union, some kind of union, between the two peoples. Come what might, the two must stand together for the sake of their mutual welfare and security.14 In consequence Bj0rnson found himself exposed to much misunderstanding, not only among the Swedes but also among his own countrymen. The distinction he was making was a little 14 Cf., for example, Bj0rnson, Artikler og Taler, Vol. Π, pp. 16, 17, 137, 236, 240, 276, 332, 401; Historisk Tidsskrift, Vol. XXXI, p. 79; B. Bj0mson, Β ipr risorti Brev: Kamp-Liv, Vol. I, p. 265. In his forthcoming work on Bj0rnson as a nationalist, Harold Larson has discussed at some length Bj0rn son's relations with Sweden.

22

B J 0 R N S O N ' S INTEREST IN PEACE

too finespun to be grasped in the heat of political controversy, and, in his zeal to plead Norway's cause as he saw it, he perhaps did not always make his reservations as clear as he might have. When, in the midst of the parliamentary

controversy

( 1 8 8 0 - 8 4 ) , he attacked the monarchy, 15 no doubt many of his hearers jumped to a direct and logical conclusion, and assumed that he meant to break every tie with Sweden. After all, he had always been among the leaders every time a new" demand was raised that involved Norway's liberty and independence. And after his famous " L e t us separate" article

16

in the midst

of the growing crisis over the consular question, it seemed clear that he had in mind a final reckoning with the Swedes. Impatient as some of his outbursts were, however, they revealed only a part of his attitude. This became clear from 1 8 9 3 on, as he began to urge a more conciliatory policy toward Sweden. 17 He broke with his party colleagues of the Left, who were pushing the consular question

so relentlessly,

and

in

1 8 9 5 , in the midst of a great crisis, he had the temerity to propose settlement by arbitration. On both occasions he called down upon his head the direst imprecations—he,

Norway's

patriot par excellence! But to those who cared to give him his just dues—and at the time they were f e w — h e had made clear that, willing as he was to sacrifice not only the monarchy but even the Union as then constituted, he was not prepared to jeopardize the mutual welfare and security of the two peoples. That welfare and that security, he took pains to assert frequently, would have to be embodied in some sort of tie between them, some sort of union. His concern for peace now was dominant, and he strongly urged the three Northern states to form a Scandinavian league for defense and neutrality. His enthusiasm for such a l e a g u e — l : , C f . , for example, Verdens Gang, Brev: Kampliv, Vol. II, p. 7, letter of 10 Verdens Gang, Feb. 26, 1892; cf. 17 Morgengryet, Vol. X, Aug. 23 and

July 8, 1882, and B. Bj0mson, April 29, 1882, to Dikka Meiler. the issue for March 4. 26, 1892.

Bjjrnsons

B J 0 R N S O N ' S I N T E R E S T IN P E A C E

23

given added point after Norway became fully independent in 1905—in all probability owed something to his zeal for a republican free state and a Christian democracy in the North. It certainly capitalized his interest in Scandinavianism. That interest had passed its early maximum by the middle of the seventies, 18 but now it took a fresh turn and assumed new vigor. B J 0 R N S O N DIRECTLY INTERESTED IN PEACE

Like many others, Bj0rnson first became vitally interested in the peace cause in the later eighties. Once it had taken his fancy, the cause made vital claims upon his allegiance, and he lent his energies to its promotion in a fashion anything but half-hearted or perfunctory. 18 With absolute faith in the justice of the cause, he took to it with evangelical fervor, feeling that his own country might play a certain messianic rôle in its progress. If it were pursued energetically in Norway, he reasoned, the contagion of it would spread from there to Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, England, and Germany (the Teutonic lands), and later would infect the Latin peoples. Its progress, in other words, would be much like that of the Christian faith, which had spread to all parts of the world from the small Hebrew people in the Holy Land.20 In the early nineties the peace cause became a major concern with Bj0rnson. He tried to form peace societies; he lectured on peace during visits to Denmark in 1890 and 1892; he gave wide publicity to the work of the Swedish pacifist Arnoldson; he wrote an oratorio called Fred ("Peace"). This was a work of uneven merit, pitched in an exalted key. Some of its passages were moving and powerful. The author personified his great 18 Cf. I. A. Refsdal, "Bj0rnson og Bjprnson-forskningen," Samtiden, Vol. XLVI, pp. 540-56. 19 For a clear summary of his efforts on behalf of peace see Asbjpm 0verâs, "Bj0rnson og Fredsarbeidet," in Arent Midtb0, Fredsarbeidet (Trondheim, 1936), pp. 257-79. 20 Morgengryet, Vol. X, Aug. 16, 1892.

24

BJ0RNSON'S

INTEREST

IN

PEACE

protest against war in the figure of the bereaved mother who has lost her son in battle: " I t is not life alone that you m u r d e r , " she laments, "but [ a l s o ] the thousand-threaded web behind— all its possibilities." Voices of an invisible choir intone the precepts of the Prince of Peace, and in the end men and women join in a condemnation of all war. 2 1 In 1889-90, the Swedish publicist, K . P. Arnoldson, had made quite a stir in Norway, and Bj0rnson undertook to help promote his recent book on peace by writing a vigorous introduction to the Norwegian edition. 22 This essay gave a fairly coherent statement of Bj0rnson's position on the peace question. There were those, he observed (and though he probably did not realize it then, his passage fitted Alfred N o b e l ) , who had hoped that the art of war, aided mightily by invention, would eventually make war itself impossible. But instead, war had merely become briefer and correspondingly deadlier. The reason, he insisted, was that at bottom the issue was not scientific but psychological. War, instead of being held in honor everywhere-—in school, in church, in public life generally— must come to lose some of its glamor, " l i k e brass that is not to be polished." Youth must find nobler exercises than "butchering the son of one's neighbor"; wives and sweethearts must evolve ideals of beauty and virtue superior to shallow admiration for a uniform. The churches, too, must cease to give their blessing to war. 23 2 1 The oratorio is printed in the several collections of Bj0rnson's poetical works. In the Standard edition (1919-20) it appears in Vol. VIII, pp. 417-34. The original plan was to have Edvard Grieg compose mu9ic for the oratorio; cf. David Monrad Johansen, Edvard Grieg (Oslo, 1934), pp. 333-36. 2 2 K. P. Arnoldson, Lov—ikke Krig, mellem Folkene (H0vik, 1890), pp. 3-10. The original Swedish title was Ar Världsfred Möjlig (1890). In English translation it was published as Pax Mundi (London, 1892). 2 3 Cf. his "Statskirken og Krigen," which featured the opening issue of Det norske Fredsblad, Vol. I, July 5, 1894.

B J 0 R N S O N ' S I N T E R E S T IN PEACE

25

P I A N S FOR PRACTICAL PEACE WORK

In the Arnoldson preface Bj0rnson also elaborated a plan for practical peace action. He insisted that work for arbitration, peace, and disarmament should begin with a few small states. In these matters one could expect no beginnings from the great powers; more or less like beasts of prey, they had come into possession of too much "unjust territory." 24 The initiative must come from the smaller states, for they were most endangered and could find security only in larger combinations. Let a few of these states form a little federation to apply the principles of arbitration and disarmament, and then this area of calm would grow as more and more states joined until finally the resulting international federation would dominate the disturbed waters of the international maelstrom.25 But what lesser states should take the initiative? There were several groups that might, but the most likely, Bj0rnson felt, was that which the states of Northern Europe comprised. Trae enough, there was a similar cluster of states in Southeastern Europe, but Bj0mson thought these unprepared for such action. They were too much dominated by egoistic ambitions, too greatly dissatisfied with their present boundaries (for the Macedonian issue was then prominent). The states of Northern Europe, on the contrary, were in a more fortunate situation. They might well make a beginning through their national parliaments. In the matter of arbitration, the Norwegian Storting had made a good record,2® and it might well set out to interest the neighboring national assemblies in the formation of a neutrality league. Once relations with Sweden were satisfactorily resolved and democracy established in that country also, it 24 K. P. Arnoldson, op. cit., p. 9 ; B. Bj0rneon, "De Neutrales Forbund," Det norske Fredsblad, Vol. VI, March 30, 1899. 25 There are frequent references to such a procedure in Bj0rnson's writings. See, for example, his Artilder og Taler, Vol. II, pp. 169, 252, 300, 441, 514, 516, 545. 26 Cf. infra, pp. 117-25.

26

B J 0 R N S O N ' S INTEREST IN PEACE

would be quite f e a s i b l e , thought Bj0rnson, f o r N o r w a y to invite Sweden to join her in a policy of general disarmament. 2 7 T h e idea of first neutralizing an enclave of small states, and then working to p a c i f y the wider international scene, was closely associated in B j 0 r n s o n ' s mind with his theory of Pan-Germanism. A s he c a m e to f o r m u l a t e it, 28 he thought of a neutral or defensive federation composed of the lesser peoples of Teutonic race—Sweden,

Norway,

D e n m a r k , the Netherlands,

Switzer-

l a n d , L u x e m b u r g , and B e l g i u m . L a t e r G e r m a n y — a n d beyond her A u s t r i a — m i g h t b e induced to enter this combination. It was in the interest of this pacificatory Pan-Germanism that he had asked Denmark to forget the war with P r u s s i a and to improve relations with her conqueror. Once such a Teutonic aggregation h a d been f o r m e d , he believed, E n g l a n d a n d the United States would want to join. Ultimately the entire civilized world would be organized into a single peace federation e m p l o y i n g courts of arbitration f o r disputes not otherwise settled. 2 9 THE

SWEDISH

QUESTION

In the course of the nineties Bj0rnson brought his convictions on p e a c e to b e a r in rather striking f a s h i o n on two different foreign situations. One involved relations with Sweden, the other involved relations with R u s s i a . In the first instance, in 1 8 9 3 , he deserted his colleagues of the L e f t in the midst of the long tension over the consular question

30

b e c a u s e he began to f e a r that in this matter the policy of

the L e f t was unrealizable. Furthermore, he became convinced that the policy was d a n g e r o u s , since it forced one half of Norway, the liberal half, to f a c e not merely the conservative half, K . P . A r n o l d s o n , op. cit., p. 9. Vol. X V I I I , p. 4 1 0 ; B . B j 0 r n s o n , " F r e d e n o g F r e d s v e n n e r n e , " Samtiden, B . B j 0 r n s o n . " L ' l ' n i o n des p e u p l e s g e r m a n i q u e s , " L'Européen, A p r i l 25, 1903, P. 6. 29 j0rgen L ^ v l a n d s a w s i m i l a r possibilities in the A n g l o - F r e n c h entente of 1904. C f . Samtiden, Vol. X V , p p . 286-87. C f . infra, p p . 90-93. 27

28

B J 0 R N S O N ' S I N T E R E S T IN P E A C E

27

but the conservative half fortified by the sympathies of the Swedish nation and the monarchy. It was not an easy thing for him thus to part company with his liberal colleagues, when he had been the premier patriot on so many an occasion and had so confidently volunteered to visit Sweden and to present the Norwegian cause in a way to make the Swedes "understand." In 1 8 9 5 the dangerous situation Bj0rnson had envisaged actually materialized, and he stepped forward at the cost of extreme unpopularity and violent abuse to demand that the crisis be liquidated by arbitration. To substantiate his plea, he wrote a pamphlet 3 1 in which he reminded the hotheads that their efforts were forcing the country into a contest of arms in which only half of their own countrymen would join them. Some there were who attempted to silence him by inquiring who should arbitrate this dispute. To these he replied unhesitatingly—the Danes.32 Any one of several agencies in Denmark might serve: the Danish Supreme Court, the faculty of history and jurisprudence at the University of Copenhagen, even a free assembly selected by the Danish Rigsdag. He conceded that before such a tribunal the Norwegians might possibly lose, yet he was fully confident that in the actual event it would be Sweden's case which would appear hopelessly flimsy and fantastic "long before the final decision." Even a result adverse to Norway would be worth while, he thought, since it would provide a disinterested opinion as to whether the basic documents of the Union did or did not assure to Norwegians the right to adjust their own affairs. In any event, they certainly had no intention of relinquishing their rights as an independent people. To some who feared a predominance of conservatives in any Danish tribunal Bj0rnson retorted that he had usually found more liberalism within the Danish Right than within the Norwegian Left—a thrust possibly aimed at his erstwhile party 31

Voldgijt (Christiania, 1895). " Cf. Det norske Fredsblad, Vol. II, No. 2, pp. 1-2.

28

B J 0 R N S O N ' S I N T E R E S T IN PEACE

colleagues. Finally, if a Danish tribunal simply would not be acceptable, Bj0rnson was willing that the issue be submitted to England. B J 0 R N S O N AND RUSSIA

The second situation to which Bj0rnson urged a pacific approach had to do with Russia. The Swedes, and a great many Norwegians with them, were at the time genuinely apprehensive, even fearful, of Russian territorial designs, especially in the northern part of the Scandinavian peninsula. Here, it seemed, the colossus of the East might without too much effort make a northern thrust across to Troms0 and thus gain an ice-free port on the Atlantic. In the face of these apprehensions Bj0rnson proposed the unbelievable. Why not take Russia at her word, he asked, when she disclaimed the territorial ambitions imputed to her? Why not put some reliance upon friends of peace within Russia? Why not, even, give Russia rights of transit across northern Norway to the Atlantic? This would be a better policy than "rattling cannon balls" in the face of so powerful a nation.33 If she asked more than the Norwegians thought equitable, the matter could be submitted to arbitration. The line of transit with its railway would after all remain under Norwegian jurisdiction. Why, he asked, should "a line on the map" put an end to "that love of neighbor to which we are everywhere obligated"? 84 Such proposals drove almost to distraction the patriots in both Scandinavian countries. Above all, many Swedes, though their fears were quite unfounded, found it easy to believe that Bj0rnson had been "bought" by the Russians. It only aggravated matters when he contributed articles on the subject to the for33

K. P. Arnoldson, op. cit., pp. 7-8. O. Gjerlftw, Norges Politiske Historie, Vol. II, p. 102, quoted from Dagbladet, Oct. 8, 1891; cf. Bj^rnson, Arti/der og Taler, Vol. II, pp. 171, 191-92, 259, 266. 34

B J 0 R N S O N ' S INTEREST IN PEACE

29

eign press,35 especially when some of his writings in the German papers were reprinted in the Russian press. When, as a consequence, he wrote for the Petersburgskija Vjedomosti a series of letters which appeared late in 1896 and early in 1897, some of the fire-eating Swedes were certain that in Norway elements were intriguing with the hated enemy behind Sweden's back. Bj0rnson found it advisable to publish his correspondence to the Russian paper together with a few speeches on the subject of relations with Russia, in Swedish and Norwegian editions. In these editions, he reaffirmed his conviction that security was obtainable only through arbitration, and that a policy to end war must take its point of departure from small states.38 Ever ready to champion the cause of the lesser states, he asked parenthetically whether it might be altogether an accident that two such signal undertakings as Nansen's Polar expedition and Nobel's magnificent legacy had "their cradle" in the same small people.87 Bj0rnson had written his letters primarily to induce the Swedes to join with Norway in the demands for arbitration as a guarantee of their neutrality. It was precisely because major questions were still in abeyance that he bluntly insisted upon arbitration, first with Russia and then, in due course, with other states.38 It was a bit awkward, he protested, to be accused by the Swedish Foreign Minister (Count Douglas) of menacing Scandinavian security, when the Swedish ministry had twice blocked Norwegian efforts to secure the adoption of general arbitration treaties.8® We have now briefly seen how Bj0rnson's ideas on peace were involved with his early notions of Scandinavianism and how See for example Die Zukunft, Vol. XIII (1895), pp. 192-96. B. Bj0mson, Mine Brev til Petersburgskija Vjedomosti (Christiania, 1899 [1898]), pp. 20-21. « ibid., p. 24. 88 Ibid^ p. 44. »· Ibid., p. 37. 85

38

30

BJ0RNSON'S

INTEREST

IN

PEACE

he put his convictions to a severe test in the case of relations with Sweden and with Russia. He was a party also to the early efforts to get the peace sentiment in Norway organized and to these efforts we may next pay some attention. A general survey of the peace movement in Norway will make clear, in Part Two of this study, the extent to which the peace sentiment in the Norwegian Storting rested on a popular basis. Thereupon in Part Three we may take up in some detail the Norwegian Storting's interest in the cause of peace. After having thus surveyed the general background against which they carry on their work, we can then turn in Part Four to a closer investigation of the Storting's Nobel Committee and the Norwegian Nobel Institute. 40 4 0 For the historical background of the period covered by this study see: the semi-popular work by E. Bull et al., Det norske folks Liv og Historie gjennem Tidene (10 vols., Oslo, 1929-35) especially Vol. X, which is by Wilhelm Keilhau; O. Gjerlpw, Norges Politiske Historie: Hjires Innsats fra 1814 til Idag (3 vols., Oslo, 1934-36), Vol. I I ; J . S. Worm-Müller et al., Venstre i Norge (Oslo, 1933) ; A. Bugge et al., Norges Historie fremstillet for det norske Folk (6 vols., Christiania, 1908-17), Vol. VI, Part II. Available in English are: K. Gjerset, History of the Norwegian People (2 vols., New York, 1915; one vol., New York, 1927), and G. Gathorne Hardy, Norway (London, 1925).

PART TWO T H E P E A C E M O V E M E N T IN

NORWAY

III THE PEACE MOVEMENT AND OTHER LIBERAL CAUSES I N ORDER to make clear the general aspects of the peace movement in a single country, such as Norway, it is necessary first to take account of the broad international movement. Europe, after a series of wars and disturbances in the central part of the continent, culminating in the Franco-Prussian War, had settled down to an armed peace. The peace-minded, however, easily realized that peace was far from established and set about to strengthen the peace sentiment by giving it organized expression. Their labors found support in those intellectual and philosophic currents of positivism and evolution which colored so much of the thought of the century and which spread so widely in all fields of liberal and humanitarian endeavor the faith in general progress. The peace movement, in fact, was but one of those "causes" which self-styled liberals everywhere at the close of the century championed on principle. These "causes" sometimes included endeavors which were more contradictory than many realized, but they were nevertheless held together in a broad program comprehending such "progressive" endeavors as the feminist and the temperance movements, the suffrage agitation and the cause of international peace. ORGANIZED PEACE EFFORTS ABROAD

The organized peace effort became marked in the sixties. Late in that decade and early in the seventies a number of popular peace societies were founded in various countries. In 1873 steps were taken which led to the formation of two academic legal societies interested in peace: namely, the Institute

34

P E A C E AND O T H E R

CAUSES

of International Law and the International Law Association (originally called the Association for the Reform and Codification of the Law of Nations). In the eighties new advances were registered along popular and governmental avenues. Hodgson Pratt in 1880 founded the International Arbitration and Peace Association, which held meetings of international scope at Brussels in 1882 and at Berne in 1884. The first Universal Peace Congress met in 1889, as did also the first Inter-Parliamentary Conference. In the same year the Pan-American Union took the form it has since retained. The Inter-Parliamentary Union was organized in 1892, and in the same year the International Peace Bureau was established at Berne. Pratt's activities in the early eighties had stimulated the formation of local peace societies in a number of countries, including the Scandinavian. Through the initiative of Fredrik Bajer (1837-1922) the Dansk Fredsforening ("Danish Peace Union") was formed in 1882. A year later, K. P. Arnoldson (1844-1916) helped bring into being Svenska Freds- och Skiljedomsförening ("The Swedish Peace and Arbitration Union"). Steps to coordinate peace endeavors in the North were taken during a Scandinavian peace meeting at Gothenburg in 1885, but this effort was at first not markedly successful. The representation at this first gathering was very uneven, only two persons, apparently, being present from Norway.1 POLITICAL ALIGNMENTS IN NORWAY

In Norway as elsewhere there was, in the early eighties, no little enthusiasm for the peace cause, but the sentiment was inchoate and unorganized. Most of it was diffused through a variety of other "liberal" causes, and only after a closer analysis 1 These two were Andreas 0yen and Κ. V. Hammer; cf. "Fredsm0det i Goteborg," Verdens Gang, Aug. 22, 1885; Carl Sundblad, Svenska Fredsrörelsens Historia, Vol. I, p. 85.

PEACE AND OTHER CAUSES

35

of these shall we be able to perceive how vital was the interest in peace. The program of liberalism in Norway was the chief concern —some party enthusiasts would almost say the monopoly—of the party of the Left. This party had come into being through the coalescence in the sixties and early seventies of several elements which shared a common hostility to the Bernadotte king and his Norwegian ministers and officials. Out of the play of that antagonism had gradually taken shape the basic alignment in Norwegian politics which dominated the last third of the nineteenth century. Those anxious to preserve the royal prerogative, or at any rate those usually reluctant to diminish it, were distinguished as the party of the Right. Their orientation was naturally conservative, and their strength was recruited from the bureaucratic, academic, and commercial classes. On the other side, those ready to resist any royal advance and determined to restrict further in some respects the power of the Crown had become the party of the Left. Their support was drawn largely from rural antecedents, traditionally hostile to the office-holding group, or from liberal intellectuals who championed "progressive" ideas on principle. In the later stages of this antagonism, one issue above every other had served to give final form and cohesion to the party alignment between Right and Left. For three-quarters of a century the Bernadottes had intermittently been at odds with the Storting over the question of the proper rôle of their Norwegian ministers. Should the ministers have seats in the Storting or should they not? For a long time the Storting members feared that their admission would merely invite royal encroachment. But after the middle of the century, as patterns of parliamentary government became fashionable elsewhere in Europe, and as it became clear that the royal ministers could be held responsible to it, the same Storting began to insist that these officials should

36

P E A C E AND O T H E R

CAUSES

sit within its halls. This issue of ministerial responsibility came to agitate the whole sweep of Norwegian public life and finally carried the two branches of the government into a long deadlock (1880-84) which was broken only when the monarchy conceded defeat and permitted the establishment of unhampered parliamentarism. The years of deadlock were so critical that the Norwegian social order was in danger of dissolving in violence. There were rumors, poorly substantiated it is true, but no whit restricted thereby in the radius of their circulation, to the effect that the Crown and the ministry would resolve the issue in favor of the conservatives with a coup d'état. Liberals feared that the blow would fall upon the Storting, and thoughts turned to means of defending the national assembly. A new turn was given, for example, to the activities of the National Rifle Clubs,2 a type of association that had been founded a generation earlier ( partly for political reasons) and that had in time begun to receive through its locals some state support, on the technicality that they encouraged gymnastics and marksmanship. In the midst of the political crisis, the poet Bj0rnson, in a poem published on September 15, 1881, 3 summoned the Rifle Clubs to assemble around the Storting as the citadel of freedom. Conservatives were rightly alarmed and raised the cry of "revolution." In the face of this new political development, membership in the Rifle Clubs naturally increased. A number of new locals were organized, usually with a definite partisan emphasis and often in close association with neighboring elements of the party of the Left. The vague outlines of a potential parliamentary army began to take shape. During the crisis there was one other manifestation of the agitated state of the public mind which we should notice—a type of community meeting held frequently in the summers from 2 Cf. "O. Five," Norsk Aarbok, 1921, pp. 36-43. 3 In Verdens Gang.

PEACE AND OTHER CAUSES

37

1882 to 1884. These assemblies, gathered at any crossroad or any hamlet, were usually led by previously assigned speakers. Invariably these speakers were of the liberal side, which traditionally had some experience with popular agitation. The usual procedure was for the meetings to open with formal speeches and then to transform themselves into free-for-all discussion forums and stimulating public debates, in which the logic pursued and the tactics employed were occasionally far from scrupulous.4 All this stir was most exhilarating to the masses and rural folk, most of them as yet unfranchised and in many cases expecting that the liberals would at some time give them the vote. What gave a special character to these assemblies was the increasingly frequent presence in their midst of a coherent conservative opposition. More and more the conservatives had come to feel that polite discussion of political affairs in the newspapers was insufficient. The rabid leaders of the Left must be answered on their own ground. Hence leaders of the Right began to send speakers to represent them at these popular assemblies. It is true that the questions discussed were such rather narrowly political ones as: Just what veto power had the King? Should ministers sit in the Storting? Ought the suffrage to be extended, and if so, to what lengths? Hence it is not clear at first sight exactly what importance these meetings have for our purpose. To understand that we must look to their larger significance. When we do so, we see them as the means whereby the masses of the country were familiarized with the general idea of reform and taught to regard the championing of "causes" as a perfectly natural thing—were introduced, so to speak, to the whole program of social and intellectual progress as then propounded by the liberals. It is true that, politically speaking, the Left was championing the cause of the masses, but beyond that * Cf. Y. Nielsen, Under Oscar ITs Regjering 200, 205-21, 271-74.

(Christiania, 1912), pp. 177-85, 188-

38

P E A C E AND O T H E R

CAUSES

it was doing something more. The wing later considered the " p u r e " Left, in particular, was anxious to carry forward a whole program of "liberal" causes, to proceed in fact with a renovation of society in conformity with the advanced ideas of progress and revolution. Its hand was set against privilege and tyranny of every sort, and its support was given to the whole congeries of liberal causes: the feminist movement, the temperance cause, the moral question of the relation of the sexes, the effort to secure toleration and freedom for dissenting religious groups, the demand for realism or for naturalism in literature, the agitation for reduction of military expenditures, the hope for promoting the ideals of peace in international relations. 5

These

causes were thus made familiar to the masses, who logically identified them with the fortunes and leadership of the Left. The Right, on the other hand, had few positive policies. Its press, for instance, greeted with silence or lukewarmness the efforts in favor of the peace cause which found sympathy and ready space in the media of the Left.® RELIGIOUS GROUPS AND T E M P E R A N C E

ADVOCATES

We turn now from politics to see what support the peace cause was getting from religious elements. Our primary concern is with a few dissenting groups of pietistic outlook—Methodists, Baptists, Quakers, and Free Church elements—and a certain broad-church tendency within the established Lutheran church. All of these flourished as they did partly because of the somewhat remarkable economico-evangelical movement of Hans Nielsen Hauge ( 1 7 7 1 - 1 8 2 4 ) at the opening of the nineteenth century, which had shaken the dominance of the established clergy. The dissenting elements opposed "ecclesiastical bureaucracy" much as the liberals fought the political bureaucrats, and Cf. Det norske Fredsblad, Vol. II, Nos. 18-19 (double number), p. 4. "Bladet vender sig," Morgengryet, 1884, No. 43 ; cf. Det norske Fredsblad, Vol. I, No. 2, p. 2. 5

a

PEACE A N D OTHER CAUSES

39

it was not strange that the Left should enlist their political sympathies. Geographically, they were concentrated along the westsouthwest coastal regions and their "capital" was the city of Stavanger. This was most obviously true of the Quaker element. Here as elsewhere, though not very numerous, it was important quite out of proportion to its numbers in establishing a tradition of personal opposition to war. The first Quakers had come from England as an incidental circumstance of the Napoleonic wars, and while their doctrines took root in other localities Stavanger remained their headquarters. From here they kept up connections with the "mother country" across the North Sea. The moment we seek to follow in any detail the pacifist activities of the Norwegian Quakers, we find that these are interrelated with their work for the temperance cause. The Society of Friends, as one epigram had it, labored to abolish Negro slavery, military slavery, and the slavery of drink.7 An indiscriminate support of the peace and temperance causes was, in fact, more or less characteristic of all the dissenting groups, and it will be convenient to speak of the two simultaneously, recognizing that one often fortified the other. The Quaker influence in this combination was best represented by the career of Asbj0rn Kloster (1823-76), 8 who, interestingly enough, was born in the Stavangerfjord region. Kloster visited England in 1847 to attend an agricultural school and another institution conducted by the Society of Friends. He became directly interested in the cause of peace and also in the English temperance movement. In 1859 he established Norway's first 7

Fred, Vol. I, Jan. 15, 1899, p. 4. Norsk Biografale Leksikon, Vol. VII, pp. 409-13; S. A arres tad, "AsbjjMn Kloeter," Menneskevennen, 1923, pp. 401-4; O. S. leene, "Asbj0rn Kloster," Fra Talerstolen (2 vols., Christiania, 1912-17), Vol. II, pp. 34 et seq., 56-69; Fred, Vol. I, April 30, 1899. Cf. also John F. Hanson, Light and Shade from the Land of the Midnight Sun (Oskaloosa, Iowa, 1903), pp. 192-204. For verifying an inquiry concerning the last work the writer is indebted to Professor Merle E. Curti of Smith College. 8

40

P E A C E AND O T H E R

CAUSES

total abstinence society, and the next year he launched a periodical to represent it, known from 1861 by the title Menneshevennen ("The Friend of M a n " ) . Though avowedly a temperance organ, the publication quite frequently included items— often translated from the English—expressing the Quaker attitude toward war. For a time in the early sixties Kloster labored in Christiania, though with no marked success. Later he returned to the west. At temperance meetings he touched freely upon the peace question, and occasionally the Quaker group at Stavanger issued pamphlets on the war problem.8 The relations between the temperance issue and the peace c a u s e in N o r w a y grew not less but r a t h e r m o r e intimate with

the passage of time. Of course they soon overleaped any narrow Quaker limits. Peace advocates often sought to capitalize the sentiment within temperance circles in favor of their cause. It was so at the first abortive attempt in 1885 10 to organize a Norwegian peace society, as well as at the more successful endeavor in 1895. 1 1 The most active publicist in the service of the peace cause at the tum of the century, N. J . S0rensen,12 frequently referred to the connection between temperance and peace; 13 there were likewise efforts in later decades to use the effective propagandist machinery of the temperance societies for the peace cause.14 It is not without significance that the former president (1887-1927) of the Norwegian Total Abstinence Society, editor at various times of Menneskevennen, has written 9 Cf. Krig og Kristendom (1871) ; Hvorledes skulle Kristne handle i Krigstid (1881). 10 "Fredssagen," Morgengryet, Vol. I l l (1885), No. 2. 1 1 A. Satro, Om Fredssagen (Christiania, 1895), p. 8. Sabro and Sprensen related in one triad the agitations for peace, for temperance, and for higher standards of sexual morality. Cf. infra, pp. 57-61. " C f . Det norske Fredsblad, Vol. IV, April 8, 1897; Vol. V, Oct. 13, 1898; Vol. VI, Aug. 31, 1899; Fred, Vol. I, Jan. 15, 1899, p. 4. 1 4 Cf. Stavanger Fredsbanner, Vol. I, July 7, 1905 ; A. Midtb0, Fredsarbeidet, pp. 193-97.

PEACE AND OTHER CAUSES

41

in more than perfunctory fashion on the subject of disarmament. 15 ANTI-MONARCHICAL AND DEMOCRATIC SENTIMENT

In the eighties the peace cause also drew support from the widespread hostility to the monarchy. In certain restricted circles, that hostility took the extreme form of republicanism. N. J. S0rensen openly espoused the cause of republicanism and ran afoul of the law.16 Bj0rnson also argued in its favor, and it had various sympathizers among other conspicuous leaders of the Left, such as Horst and Ullmann. As yet, however, it was only a minority that opposed monarchy on principle. More numerous were those who, without condemning monarchy outright, found many things to criticize about it. Some regarded monarchies and royal courts as inherently militaristic. 17 The military establishment was called "the child of monarchy." 18 War was described as "illustrious entertainment, the sport of kings." 19 Most wars, it was claimed, had their origins in the pride, ambition, jealousy, bad temper, or capriciousness of royalty. 20 Only after monarchy had been put away, said one writer, could there really be any talk of arbitration and general disarmament. 21 National hatreds would disappear only when there were no longer any kings to wrong one another and no cannon fodder to sacrifice—in other words when democracy was enthroned. 22 15 Sven Aarrestad, Om Awœpning (Oslo, 1928) ; Sven Aarrestad, Den stfrste Sak i v&r Τid (Bergen, 1930). ie Cf. 0stlandsk Tidende, Vol. Ill (1880), Nos. 110-12, 115; Fred, Vol. II, Noe. 11-12 (double number), p. 89. 17 Cf. Stortings Forhandlinger, 1891, VII, 1131. 18 Fred, Vol. II, Nos. 11-12 (double number), p. 89. 18 Fred, Vol. I, Jan. 15, 1899, p. 5; cf. "Fredssagen og Kongerne," Stavanger Fredsbanner, 1905, No. 22; cf. also No. 5. 20 "Voldgifts- og Fredsforeninger," Dagbladet, Sept. 9, 1884. si "Saadan Fredstilstan," Morgengryet, Vol. VI, Aug. 1, 1888. 22 "Fredssagen og Selvstyret," Verdens Gang, Aug. 7, 1885.

42

P E A C E AND O T H E R

CAUSES

This reference to democracy brings us to the obverse side of the agitation, namely to the view that the motives of representative parliaments and of the masses of men were pacific. A victory for popular democratic government, announced the prospectus of a peace group in 1885, was a victory for peace. 23 Democracy sought peace, affirmed the country's Prime Minister in 1899, when he welcomed the delegates to the Inter-Parliamentary Union Conference in Christiania. 24 The idea was well entrenched and might come to expression in sober and cautious opinion; 25 only an occasional voice was skeptical of the pacific nature of democracy. 28 It was this faith in d e m o c r a c y which made it possible, with-

out violating its sense of logic, for the Left to demand an armed citizenry. At first thought, it does seem paradoxical to think of striking at the militarist tendencies of royalty by demanding that the citizenry at large be armed or to argue that peace and arbitration could be attained more easily once the country's weapons were in the hands of the people themselves.27 Such deductions made sense only when they rested on the premise that the basic impulses of democracy were peaceful. The liberals accepted that premise whole-heartedly. We have already touched upon the fraternal relations with the popular Rifle Clubs. In 1887, in the course of a debate on the reorganization of the military establishment, certain representatives announced that they intended to work for an armed citizenry, partly for reasons of economy, but partly—and these reasons are illuminating here—because only in this way could Norway Verdens Gang, June 27, 1885. Stortings Forhandlinger, 1899-1900, V, dokument nr. 70, p. 58; Inter-Parliamentary Union, Compte rendu de la IX' Conférence tenue à Christiania (Berne, 1900), p. 3. " Cf. Halvdan Koht, "Tillit i Norden," Samtiden, Vol. XVIII, p. 588; Fredsbanneret, Vol. V, July, 1909. 2 e Aadne 0vergaard, "Demokratiets Fredsvilje," Det norske Fredsblad, Vol. IV, Dec. 30, 1897, p. 2 ; Vol. VI, Sept. 30, 1899, p. 68. 27 Lars Kleiveland, "Folkevœpningi og Freden," Uct norske Fredsblad, Vol. II, No. 5, p. 1; cf. Nos. 18-19 (double number), p. 4. 23 24

PEACE AND OTHER CAUSES

43

indicate to the world her adherence to the disarmament idea and her desire to see the cause of peace advanced among nations.2' The demand for restriction of the standing military establishment met a ready response among rural elements. There were at least two reasons for this. In the first place, such elements were traditionally in favor, on principle, of economy in governmental affairs. In the second place, they were apt to applaud any effort to hamper the bureaucracy, in which group certainly could be classed the general run of army officers. Norway, said one writer, had little need for the arts in which standing armies were adept, little need for the niceties (the expensive niceties, he might have said) of parade and review ground. She had need rather of proficiency in the aiming and firing of arms and in the carrying on of guerrilla warfare.29 It may be noted that reasons of economy figured prominently in the first efforts to form a peace society in Norway.30 ANDREAS 0 Y E N

Enough has been said to suggest how the several "liberal" causes, including the peace cause, fortified one another. If we wished to select a person to typify their mutually supporting tendencies, that person might well be Andreas Wilhelm Wexels 0yen ( 1855—). Born in the locality of Rendalen in the middle eastern part of the country, he became a school teacher, and dabbled a bit in journalism. In 1883 he launched a paper which he called Morgengryet ("Dawn"). In its columns he championed a whole cluster of "liberal" causes—extension of the suffrage, emancipation of women, abolition of capital punishment, disestablishment of the state church, freedom of speech Stortings Tidende, 1887, pp. 1363-4. 2β " f i l Fredsvennerne," Morgengryet, Vol. II, Nos. 25-26 (double number) ; cf. Vol. II, April 11, 1884, and Vol. IV, Jan. 9, 1886. 30 "Fredssagen," Morgengryet, Vol. Ill (1885), No. 2; "Norges Fredsforening," Verdens Gang, June Z7, 1885. 28

44

P E A C E AND OTHER C A U S E S

and of the press, more equitable taxation, old-age security legislation.31 0yen was acquainted with the writings of Henry George,32 and at times he drew quite freely upon Socialist phraseology.33 His sheet came to have a wide circulation, chiefly provincial and rural, partly because he had, in the spirit of good advertising as well as of good propaganda work, distributed thousands of sample copies over the course of several years.34 Rural subscribers often read him with particular satisfaction, for he constantly demanded two things traditionally close to their desires—economy in public finances and restriction of bureaucratic privilege. These two aims could be neatly combined in the agitation f o r the réduction o f the salaries and

pensions of the official classes.85 But 0yen's barrage of verbal fire against the bureaucrats was by no means directed only from this particular angle of attack,38 for he linked up with it his agitation for the cause of peace. His aim was to advance both, by popularizing the demand for cuts in allowances for the military establishment. Even as a young teacher he had been interested in peace. He had been impressed by what he saw, on a trip to Germany in 1877, of the aftermath of war, and he resolved to pass on to his countrymen his antipathy to militarism.37 Later in the same year he wrote a drama called Krig i Adamsœtten ("War in Adam's Race") which apparently was never published. His launching of Morgengryet in 1883 gave the peace sentiment in Norway its Cf. Morgengryet, Vol. VI, Feb. 8, 1888. 32 Ibid., Vol. V, Jan. 22, 1887. 3 3 Cf. "Det kapitalistiske Samfund," ibid., Vol. VII, March 2, 1889. After 0yen had severed connections with it, Morgengryet changed names several times, last appearing as the provincial edition of the medium of the Social Democrats. Cf. Fremad: Social-Demokratens Landsudgave (Christiania, 1895-1900). 34 Morgengryet, Vol. II, No. 7 ; Vol. II, No. 32; Vol. VI, No. 10 (advertisement). 3 5 Cf. ibid.. Vol. II, Dec. 1, 1884; Vol. IV, Jan. 9, 1886; Stortings Tidende, 1886, p. 1732. 3 6 Cf. "Bonden og Embedsmanden," Morgengryet, Vol. Ill, Oct. 31, 1885; "Embedsmsend og Binder," ibid., Vol. V, Jan. 22, 1887. 37 "Fredssagen: Redaktor 0yen interviewet," Handelsbladet, 1905, No. 4. 31

P E A C E AND O T H E R C A U S E S

45

first regular medium, committed as it was to work for the abolition of war, for world disarmament, and for peace.38 It was 0yen who first took steps to give the peace sentiment in Norway some measure of organization. 38

Cf. Morgengryet,

Vol. Π, p. 29.

I V

EARLY E F F O R T S TO ORGANIZE T H E first attempts to organize the peace sentiment in Norway were inspired by Hodgson Pratt's "International Arbitration and Peace Association." 1 It was Andreas 0yen who first sought, by organizing the Nordisk Forening mod Krig ("Northern Union against W a r " ) , to establish a branch of this movement in Northern Europe. Apparently this society was founded in the fall of 1882, though one source would indicate that 0yen had taken certain steps the previous year. 2 0yen evidently had in mind an organization for Scandinavia at large, as is suggested by his use of the term "Northern" rather than "Norwegian." Yet in effect his efforts were confined to Norway, since at the same time steps to form similar societies were taken by Bajer in Denmark and Arnoldson in Sweden. 8 By 1884 0yen could happily report that the Norwegian "section" of the great peace union (Pratt's Association) was growing very rapidly. No less than 21,603 friends of peace were enrolled in Norway, he said, the corresponding figures for Sweden and for Denmark having been exceeded. 4 But this large figure must be accepted with a special interpretation. It represented little more than widespread sympathy with the peace cause, as registered in signatures to petitions in favor of the 1 Cf. supra, p. 34. Though there is nothing covering the last quarter century, there is a good survey of the early history of the peace movement in Norway by Halvdan Koht, Freds-tanken i Noregs-sogo (Oslo [ s i c ] , 1906). A briefer eketch is his Histoire du mouvement de la paix en Norvège (Christiania, 1 9 0 0 ) . 2 "Fredssagen : Redaktor 0yen interviewet," Handdsbladet, 1905, No. 4. 8 " F r e d s s a g e n , " Morgengryet, Vol. III, J a n . 7, 1885; " N o r d e n og F r e d e n , " ibid., Vol. I X , Oct. 16, 1891. * " D e t gryr," ibid., Vol. II, March 28, 1884.

EARLY E F F O R T S TO ORGANIZE

47

peace advocates' aims.9 The Nordisk Forening mod Krig was anything but a compact organization. In fact, it remained inchoate and showed few signs of life over and above the peace signatures and Morgengryet, a periodical which 0yen founded in 1883 more or less as the organ of the Nordisk Forening. The latter soon went out of existence, but 0yen's paper, which championed several causes, continued publication for a decade. 0yen himself pretended to feel that in the matter of peace work it had fulfilled its purpose when efforts were made in 1885 to form a distinctive Norwegian peace organization.6 T H E E F F O R T IN

1885

The first effort to organize Norwegian peace sentiment on a definitely national basis, though still linked with Pratt's Association, was made in 1885. The leading spirits were 0yen, S0rensen,7 and especially Wollert Konow (1845-1924). 8 Born not far south of Bergen, Konow retained through life a strain of sympathy with some of the causes—the landsmaal, for example—which were well supported in the western part of the country. His family's sympathies were often Danish, his mother being a daughter of the poet Oehlenschläger. Konow early associated himself with the folk high-school movement, taking in 1868 steps to found a school at Halsn0kloster which he administered until 1874. By that time he had taken over his father's estate and had come to hold various local offices. Passing on to a wider field of activity, he represented the constituency of Sandre Bergenhus in the Storting from 1880 to 1888 and served another term from 1898 to 1900. Traditionally a member of ; His figure was similar in significance to the total signatures inscribed under the World Peaceways pledge. 9 Morgengryet, Vol. ΙΠ, Jan. 7, 1885. " Cf. infra, pp. 43-44, 57-61. 8 Usually designated Konow S Β to distinguish him from his cousin Konow Η who had the same Christian name. The suffixed letters refer to the constituencies which each represented in the Storting.

48

EARLY

EFFORTS TO

ORGANIZE

the Left, he grew more moderate after the separation from Sweden. In 1909 he was one of the founders of the Liberal Left, a grouping which in spite of its name had definite conservative leanings, and from 1910 to 1912 he headed a ministry nominally of the new grouping. Konow's interest in the peace cause dated back to Hodgson Pratt's endeavors in the eighties, more specifically to the European Peace Congress which Pratt and Lemonnier organized at Berne in 1884. There Konow met Fredrik Bajer," and became enthusiastically interested in Pratt's movement. Years later he took an interest in the Inter-Parliamentary Union, and he went as a delegate to the Hague Conference in 1899. For a brief period (1922-24) he was a member of the Storting's Nobel Committee. It was Konow, apparently, who was most instrumental in the calling of the assembly which took steps to organize Norges Fredsforening ("Norway's Peace Union"). It met at Christiania in February, 1885, and according to S0rensen's liberal estimate was representative of 50,000 adherents of the Left.10 In a leading speech, tinged with Benthamite liberalism, Konow appealed for support from various groups: from the friends of temperance, from pious and religious folk who were reminded of the sacrifices their countrymen had sustained in order to further civilization through the missionary cause, from the devotees of public economy, from friends of social reform who could see that in many localities too little was done for such elementary social services as schools and roads, and from patriots and lovers of democracy who might prefer not to see Norway outclassed by a state like Switzerland.11 A temporary directorate, including S0rensen, was designated, and Konow was made president of the undertaking. Fred, prfvenummer, Dec. 7, 1898, p. 1. N. J. S0rensen, Fredssagen (Christiania, 1895), p. 2. 11 "Fredssagen," Morgengryet, Vol. Ill, No, 2 ; Verdens Gang, Feb. 17, 1885.

9

10

E A R L Y E F F O R T S TO O R G A N I Z E

49

By midsummer the directorate had been able to give the new Union considerable publicity. Notices were printed, and invitations to membership were distributed. Much of the ideology in Konow's speech carried over into this advertising propaganda which may be worth analyzing briefly. Reformers and humanitarians were reminded of the burdens entailed by war and by armed peace, and of what these did to block progress in "humanitarianism, civilization, freedom and welfare." Various statesmen, it was announced, were coming to see how incompatible such progress was with war, and the masses must also be made aware of this incompatibility. The way out must be sought through the adoption of the arbitration procedure (as Pratt's Association proposed). The projected society, it was promised, would work to enlighten public opinion on the advantages, some of them economic, of arbitration, and to assure an adequate representation for Norway at international peace gatherings." In connection with the interest engendered by this effort, peace groups were formed in several localities. Thus, units were organized the same year at Christianssand and Sandnes,13 and also at Christiania, the latter largely through the efforts of S0rensen.14 Two years later a similar group was started at Stavanger.15 Yet despite the publicity and the prominence of several figof 1885 died abornures participating, Norges Fredsforening ing. The leaders were occupied with too many other matters, Konow especially being absorbed in politics. The time was also inopportune for other reasons. The country was just then debating a proposed reorganization of its military defenses. An "economy group" within the Storting, pledged to economize on 1 2 "Norges Fredsforening," Morgengryet, July 10, 1885; Verdens 27, 1885; cf. Fred, prfvenummer, Dec. 7, 1898, pp. 2-3. 13 Morgengryet, April 1 and May 6, 1885. 1 4 N. J . S0ren9en, Fred paa Jorden (Christiania, 1896), pp. 5-21. » Pax, Julehefte, 1929, p. 4, note.

Gang,

June

50

EARLY

EFFORTS

TO

ORGANIZE

military expenditures, might have provided valuable support for the peace sentiment, but the group shortly fell apart. If S0rensen can be relied upon, there was hostility to the peace efforts among the inner counsels of the party of the Left. Sverdrup, the Prime Minister, seemed opposed to them. 18 F U R T H E R A T T E M P T S IN T H E EARLY

NINETIES

In the early nineties also, there were various attempts to get the peace sentiment organized, but none of them proved permanently successful. The Workers' Society in Christiania, for instance, after hearing Bj0mson give an impassioned speech on peace in December, 1 8 9 0 , urged that Bj0rnson and Konow jointly proceed to the organization of a peace society. Nothing came of this proposal," but some measure of success attended the efforts to organize local units in various parts of the country, as at Voss, 0 v r e St0rdalen, and Ullensvang in Hardanger. 18 An attempt which for a time seemed to promise well, was made at Seljord in Telemarken in the late summer of 1891. A prominent member of the Left, Viggo Ullmann, 19 invited Bj0rnson to come and speak on peace. The meeting took steps to organize a peace society, and a working committee was elected. Invitations to join the movement, in the form of published notices, included the names of Bj0rnson, Konow, Ullmann, Horst, and Lund. 20 There were efforts to establish a link with the newly formed World Peace Bureau at Berne. 21 Yet the venture languished. At Elverum, in August, 1 8 9 2 , there was an effort to place the organization on a more definite basis. 22 Once again an executive group was chosen, this time composed F red, Vol. I, p. 3 ; N. J . S0reneen, Fredssagen, p. 4. Cf. Ν. J. S0rensen, Fredssagen, pp. 6-7. Morgengryet, Vol. IX, Jan. 6 and Feb. 16, 1891 ; Vol. X, Feb. 16, 1892. 19 Cf. infra, pp. 104-5. 20 Morgengryet, Vol. IX, Oct. 16, 1891 ; "Norsk Fredsforening," Agder, Oct. 16, 1891. 21 Morgengryet, Vol. X, Jan. 8, 1892. 2 2 Cf. ibid., Vol. X, June 24 and Aug. 23, 1892. 16

17

18

E A R L Y E F F O R T S TO ORGANIZE

51

of Ullmann, Horst, Lund, Dikka Miller, and Chr. A. Bugge. Individuals and local societies were invited to a general constituent meeting to be held the following summer. Peace work, it was argued, must now be put on a more definite basis, and attention was called to the fact that the Inter-Parliamentary Union contemplated holding a meeting at Christiania in 1893.~a But again the results were ineffectual. In 1894, however, interest became unusually active, and new local peace societies were formed, especially at Bergen and at Stavanger,24 in the latter case on Quaker initiative. BERNHARD HANSSEN

What gave decisive impetus to the Norwegian peace movement in 1894 was the launching of a medium which, without being its official organ, nevertheless provided it with a clearing center. This publishing venture was undertaken by one who was to play an important part in the movement, and we may therefore devote the closing section of this chapter to a brief survey of the career of Bernhard Hanssen. Cornelius Bernhard Hanssen (1864—) was born at Feda near Flekkefjord, a coastal region in the southwestern part of the country. After attending a normal course at Christianssand and teaching in a common school for some eight years, he turned to newspaper work, and from 1891 to 1898 he published at Flekkefjord a paper called Agder. In 1900 he began a service in the Storting which was continuous to 1915 and was resumed from 1919 to 1924. Meanwhile, he developed extensive business interests, primarily in the field of shipping. It was early in this somewhat versatile career that Hanssen made his most decisive contribution to the peace movement. In the middle of the nineties he encouraged the formation of sev"Norek Fredaforening," Dagbladet, Feb. 5, 1893. Del norske FredsbUtd, Vol. I, No. 5, p. 7; cf. Vol. Ill, Nos. 1-2 (double number), p. 5 ; Fred, Vol. ΠΙ, October, 1901, p. 20; Fredsbanneret, Vol. X, October, 1914, p. 39. 23

24

52

E A R L Y E F F O R T S TO

ORGANIZE

era) local peace societies, the earliest being perhaps the one in his own neighborhood, namely Flekkefjord og Omegns Fredsforening ("Peace Union of Flekkefjord and Vicinity"). 25 Feeling keenly that the locals needed a central clearing agency, 26 Hanssen, with some financial support from Dikka M0ller, a zealous feminine supporter of the peace cause, in 1894 launched Det norske Fredsblad ("The Norwegian Peace Newspaper"). Though he later shared the editorial responsibility with N. J. S0rensen,2T he retained the financial responsibility. The paper attained a moderate circulation, but it was not a financial success. At the end of 1899 it was discontinued. Hanssen then tried another newspaper venture, starting in 1900 a medium called Folkets Β lad ("The People's Newspaper"). This lasted barely half a year, but it too gave much space to news of the local peace societies. Meanwhile, in 1895, Hanssen had helped to get under way Fredsblad. a venture that was fully as important as Det norske This was the organization, now permanently successful, of a national Norwegian peace society. But as this endeavor is to be discussed in the next chapter we shall pursue the matter no farther here, save to mention that for more than thirty years Hanssen freely gave his services to this organization. He was often a member of the executive board, and he was its first president, a position he also held from time to time in later years. In various other ways as well, Hanssen served the peace cause. He was a delegate at several international conferences, including that at St. Louis in 1904. In 1906-7 he helped to form the Northern (Scandinavian) Inter-Parliamentary Union, on whose executive board he has frequently served. Together 25

Det norske Fredsblad, Vol. I, No. 2, p. 2; Agder, May 2, 1893, and Dec. 28, 1894. 2e Agder, Jan. 30 and April 17, 1894. -- Det norske Fredsblad, Vol. I l l , Sept. 30, 1896, p. [31.

EARLY EFFORTS

TO ORGANIZE

53

with Carl Lindhagen ( 1 8 6 0 — ) , 2 8 faithful Swedish peace worker and long a mayor of Stockholm, he was instrumental in 1914 in having a monument raised on the boundary between Sweden and Norway, to commemorate the full century of peace between them. 29 In 1917 he labored actively to form the Ν or disk Fredsforbund ("Northern Peace Federation"), an all-Scandinavian organization of friends of peace. Similarly he used the advantage of his position in the Storting to press the cause of peace whenever occasion offered. It might be to urge support from the public treasury for the general activities of Norges Fredsforening 30 or a special outlay for the boundary monument just referred to, in which connection the Storting granted his request for a 2 , 0 0 0 kroner appropriation. 31 Again it might be to urge changes in the national constitution or the Act of Union, so as to forbid the use of Norway's armed forces against a foreign state for offensive purposes. 32 Or it might be to protest against the practice of excepting such matters as "vital interests" or "national honor" from consideration in arbitration treaties. Any question or subject of controversy, affirmed Hanssen, could be made a matter of national honor. 33 In the midst of the World War Hanssen placed a generous trust in the hands of Norges Fredsforening. He presented it with securities to the amount of 2 0 , 0 0 0 kroner to constitute a Peace Fund. 34 The Fund was to be administered by the executive committee of Norges Fredsforening. The income from the Fund was to be used to promote peace and brotherhood among Cf. C. Lindhagen, Carl Lindhagens Memoarer (Stockholm, 1936—). For an illustration see C. Sundblad, op. cit., Vol. I l l , p. 270. s» Cf. Stortings Forhandlinger, 1900-1901, VII, 973-75. sl Ibid„ 1914, VI, Indst. S nr. 87; VII, 570. 32 Freds-Tidende, Vol. I, May 1, 1901, p. 4. 33 Stortings Forhandlinger, 1911, VII, 755, 2726-29. 8 4 "Stor Gave til Fredssagen," Fredsbanneret, Vol. XII, Aug.-Sept., 1916, p. 35 ; Folkefred, Vol. I l l , Nov.-Dec., 1919, p. 81; Verden Venter, August, 1924, p. 51. 28

29

54

E A R L Y E F F O R T S TO

ORGANIZE

nations, international agreements, and the abolition of war and armaments. A maximum of half of the annual income could be devoted to the uses of the executive committee or to help cover expenses of representatives at peace gatherings, at home or abroad. In the event that Norges Fredsforening should ever be dissolved, the Fund was to be used to extend the rule of international law, and was to be administered by the presidents of the Storting, assisted by the original donor if he were still living.35 There may be a temptation to pass an unflattering judgment on the shifting and ephemeral successes of the several efforts to organize a national peace union in Norway from 1880 to 1895. But we should remember that the political situation was far from favorable to such a venture. Norway found herself in a Union with Sweden which left her national status ambiguous. Public interest was concentrated upon the maximum satisfaction of national demands. In such a political setting, there were not too many energies left to devote to the fostering of any sustained interest in the peace cause. 35 Statuter for det norske Fredsfond, stiftet αν Skibsreder under Verdenskrigen 1916 in the Protocol 1916-24 of Norges

Bernhard Hornsen Fredsforening.

Ν T H E NORWEGIAN PEACE UNION: EARLIER PERIOD T H E tension between Sweden and Norway, to which we referred at the close of the previous chapter, conditioned also the history of the first decade of the Norwegian Peace Union, once that organization was definitely established. By and large, the controversy with Sweden was not favorable to the growth of a peace organization. Nevertheless, within certain limits, it may well have had a stimulating effect. Whenever the tension led to a crisis and threatened to bring on war, friends of peace on both sides of the boundary must have felt that then if ever they must translate their principles into action. Something of that mood must have entered into the endeavors which led to the founding of Norges Fredsforening in 1895, the critical year in Union affairs. The result of this undertaking was to give Norway a permanent peace organization. The initiative, as we said, was taken by Bernhard Hanssen, who, in December, 1894, invited friends of peace to express their preferences for a list of ten individuals to constitute a national committee whose function it should be to centralize peace efforts in Norway. The result of this poll was made known in February, 1895; of the group chosen, Hanssen became Chairman, and H. J . Horst, a member of the Storting, Vice-President. Invitations to join this body were broadcast, and no less than sixteen locals—most of them recently formed—had joined the national organization 1 before a constituent meeting of delegates was held. It met on the last day of July, 1895—shortly after Norway, in the face of Swedish threats, had yielded on the 1

H. Koht, Freds-tanken

i Noregs-sogo, p. 112.

56

PEACE

UNION:

EARLIER

PERIOD

consular issue. The society thus formed aimed to work for the abolition of war and the substitution of arbitration and other orderly processes of settlement. 2 DISSENSION

OVER RELATIONS WITH

SWEDEN:

N.

J.

S0RENSEN

From the outset, however, the deliberations of the Norwegian Peace Union were disturbed by the transcendent public question of relations with Sweden. Two issues operated to divide the energies of the peace workers. There was, first, the issue of whether or not to press for arbitration with Sweden. Later this was superseded in importance by the question of armaments. One aggressive wing of the Left had traditionally supported the peace agitation. But within this wing there were, it should be remembered, some who after 1 8 9 5 maintained that Norway could never enforce her national demands before she became more adequately armed. Within the Peace Union, likewise, there were some who took the unequivocal pacifist stand and opposed armaments as such. But there were others who, favoring a reduction of the military establishment in principle, continued to feel that Norway's current position was exceptional and that it was unwise, for the time being, to proceed to any major reduction of her armed forces. A m o n g the moderates who thus found it difficult to make up their minds on the matter

3

were Bernhard Hanssen and Halvdan

Koht. Hanssen was willing to tolerate the established military order for a time; such toleration did not, however, constitute an expression of sympathy with the armament cause and certainly betokened no desire to promote it. 4 The ultimate aim must be disarmament, even though the road to disarmament might lead, in the manner of Switzerland, by way of a citizen 2

Det norske Fredsblad, Vol. II, Aug. 15, 1895, p. 2. Cf. Agder, March 18, 1890; Pax, Julehefte, 1929, pp. 4-5. Vol. I, September, 1917, p. 17; Fred, Vol. I l l , August, 1901. * Folkefred, 3

PEACE UNION:

EARLIER

PERIOD

57

militia.9 Koht thought that the Union with Sweden, since it did not make for security, was of doubtful value to Norway. The primary right of a nation, he insisted, was the right to assert its independence; in case of an attack Norway would, after all, have to defend herself.8 Most vocal and determined among those unconditionally opposed to armaments was N. J. S0rensen. Nicolai Julius S0rensen (1850-1923) divided his energies between teaching, newspaper work, and the law, in 1892 becoming a state auditor. Together with his wife, Birgit Weltzin S0rensen, he opened in 1878 a folk high-school at Alvheim in the southeastern part of the country, the only folk high-school of the time, he later insisted, that was not "war-inspired."

7

Shortly thereafter he turned to

journalism. For a time (1878-81)

he published

0stlandsk

Tidende, at Fredrikstad; some years later he launched Posten, which was published successively at Christiania, Kongsvinger, and Skien (1888-93). It is as newspaper man and publicist that we have to notice S0rensen and his work in the service of the peace cause. Like 0yen, 8 he championed a whole cluster of "causes." A part of his heritage he owed to Norwegian pietism: he could claim some relationship with the renowned Hans Nielsen

Hauge.

S0rensen combined the dissenter's traditional hostility to the established hierarchy with a positive conviction that there was a vital connection between religion and the programs of temperance and of peace. Princes and rulers, he averred, could more easily thrust wars upon their subjects if the consciences 5 Niels Petersen and Ingvard Nielsen, Halvtreds Aars Fredsarbejde (Copenhagen, 1932), pp. 37-38; C. Sundblad, Svenska Fredsrörelsens Historia, Vol. I, p. 190. β Det norske Fredsblad, Vol. I, Nov., 1894, p. i; Vol. Ill, Nos. 1-2 (double number), p. 6; H. Koht, "Fredsvennerne og Unionen," Folkets Blad, April 17, 1900; Freds-Tidende, Vol. I, Sept. 20, 1901, pp. 48-50; Vol. I, Nov. 1, 1901, pp. 97-99. τ Fred, Vol. I, Oct. 31, 1899, p. 155. 8 Cf. supra, pp. 43-44.

58

PEACE UNION: EARLIER

PERIOD

of the latter were deadened by drink. "Red noses had ever been among the decorations of the military uniform." 8 S0rensen was an undisguised republican and had occasion in the early eighties to serve a short prison term for certain anti-monarchical articles he had published. 10 His anti-bureaucratic sentiment encouraged him to couple his advocacy of the peace cause with a demand for economy in public expenditures. Appropriations badly needed for social services, he insisted, were squandered upon the military system, and so long as this remained true it was futile to work for the abolition of poverty. And yet, S0rensen ventured to proclaim, Europe might abolish her poverty with an expenditure no greater than the interest on the sums she now was flinging into her armament chests.11 He was half convinced that the advance of the peace cause would involve social upheaval, but he was willing to support it even though it led to social revolution. 12 Much of what S0rensen wrote as a publicist was a curious mixture of eighteenth-century rationalism and nineteenthcentury faith in progress, plus a liberal measure of that pietism which some men in every age have found a comfort. He was constantly giving historical surveys of the nineteenth century and the peace movement. He had the rationalist's cataclysmic view of history, in which the interests of one period give place abruptly to those of another. He periodized his data rigidly. Just as the first two decades of the nineteenth century had been a period of religious awakening, and the twenties and thirties a time of patriotism, so the eighties and nineties, he affirmed, belonged especially to the peace movement. But its day in turn had ended as the century closed; the new concern, he maintained, would be religious. 13 Men must adapt themselves to 9

N. J. S0rensen, Fred paa Jorden, p. 69. Cf. supra, p. 41; 0stlandsk Tidende, 1881, Nos. Retstidende, 1881, pp. 699-703. 11 N. J. S0rensen, Fred paa Jorden, pp. 17-18. 12 Ibid^ pp. 79-80; N. J. S^rensen, Fredssagen, p. 17. 13 Fred, Vol. II, forord, also pp. 86, 185. 10

110, 112, 115;

Norsk

P E A C E UNION: E A R L I E R P E R I O D

59

these changes of dominant interest. There had been a day to work for peace, but that was now past; the best to be done henceforth was to preserve the gains so far made. S 0 R E N S E N IN CONTROL OF T H E UNION

S0rensen proved to be the stormy petrel among the early leaders of the Peace Union; to some colleagues his genius seemed evil enough.14 A comic weekly described him as a friend of peace "with a taste for blood" who proved the "wildest 'berserker' " in a fight, once his enthusiasm was aroused.15 Twice in the first decade—first in 1896 and again in 1 9 0 2 — he seized control of the national organization. Twice he had the satisfaction of seeing officially sponsored periodicals expire while a medium he edited survived. What helped to give S0rensen an effective leverage on the national organization was the fact that Christiania Fredsforen· ing, the local peace society in the capital—and hence, perhaps, the one enjoying most prestige throughout the country—was directly controlled by S0rensen. This local, which soon included several units,16 was started in November, 1895, and chose S0rensen as its first chairman. Largely under his influence, and quite unperturbed by the critical turn relations with Sweden had taken early in the summer of 1895, this local took an uncompromising stand against all war.17 Shortly afterward, it defended the conscientious objectors who refused all support to the prevailing military establishment.18 Paradoxically enough, S0rensen accused the moderates of carrying on a peace activity that was insufficiently national in its point of view.19 Relations between the national organization of the Peace Union Cf. "Norges Fredsforening," Dagbladet, April 25, 1897. Tyrihans, 1903, p. 62. '« Cf. Fred, Vol. I, p. 6. 17 Del norske Fredsblad, Vol. Ill, p. 4 ; Fred, Vol. II, /orord. 18 Fred, Vol. I, pp. 156-57; Vol. II, p. 51. " D e i norske Fredsblad, Vol. V, Sept. 8, 1898; Fred, Vol. I, Nov. 15, 1899, pp. 163-64; Vol. Π, Jan. 15, 1900, pp. 3-4. 14

15

60

PEACE UNION: EARLIER

PERIOD

and the Christiania local were therefore none too cordial at times, and Bernhard Hanssen thought it well to warn the hurried reader that Christiania Fredsforening was not to be taken for Norges Fredsforening.'0 As we have said, S0rensen captured control of the national organization on two occasions. At the annual meeting at Stavanger in 1896 he was chosen chairman of the national body. In passing, it may be noted that he sought to encourage the closest relations with the temperance advocates. 21 He was reelected the following year, but in 1898, at Bergen, 22 the moderates prevented his continuance in office. In succession, they chose a s president D i k k a M i l l e r in 1 8 9 8 , B e r n h a r d

Hanssen

in 1899, and Halvdan Koht in 1900 and 1901. But in 1902 S0rensen, pushing his uncompromising views on armaments 23 — a s in 1896, Stavanger, significantly enough, was the scene of this annual meeting—recovered the presidency and held it in effect until 1905. But after that his influence waned. The disturbing character of S0rensen's influence is most apparent when we look to the periodicals issued in the interest of the peace cause. During his first presidency (1896-98) of the Peace Union, S0rensen naturally had direct access to the columns of Det norske Fredsblad, which Bernhard Hanssen had founded for the peace movement. But shortly after he was ousted in 1898 S0rensen launched his own little periodical, intended, in the first instance, as an organ of the more radical local society in Christiania. 24 It was called Fred ( " P e a c e " ) and it bore the subtitle "Journal of International Law and Arbitration." The form in which it appeared suggested at times the serial booklet rather than the traditional magazine. A year later, as we have seen, Bernhard Hanssen found it 20

Det norske Fredsblad, Vol. I l l , April 30, 1896. Fred, Vol. VIII, pp. 111-12. 2 2 From which " u n f o r t u n a t e " meeting S0rensen dated the " d e c l i n e " of the Norwegian Peace movement. Cf. ibid., Vol. II, pp. 10, 186; Vol. VIII, p. 109. Freds-Tidende, Vol. II, pp. 87, 89-91 ; Fred, Vol. VI, December, 1904, p. 182. 24 Fred, Vol. VI, p. 181. 21

PEACE UNION: E A R L I E R PERIOD

61

necessary to end Det norske Fredsblad, leaving the national organization without an organ to represent it. This deficiency was made good in part when Halvdan Koht, in November, 1900, began to edit a bi-monthly column in Dagbladet, a daily of the Left, under the caption Freds-Tidende ("Peace News"). Continued under this name, Koht's column later expanded into a separate periodical. After S^rensen recovered the presidency in 1902, however, Freds-Tidende seemed rather superfluous; by the end of 1903 it was defunct. S0rensen continued to publish his own medium Fred until 1907. THE

UNION FROWNED

UPON B Y

THE

STORTING

The rivalry between the moderates and the extremists was in some ways a misfortune for the Peace Union. How detrimental it could be was suggested by the Storting's reactions to requests for aid out of the public treasury—requests which seemed to many quite in order, in view of the reputation the Storting was earning through its support of some international aspects of the peace cause.25 The directors of the Peace Union in 1895 asked for a public grant of 500 kroner to help publish Det norske Fredsblad, but this request was refused on the technicality that it had been unaccompanied by any description of the society's activities.26 Quite undaunted, the officers of the Peace Union in 1896 asked for a sizable subvention, no less than 10,000 kroner, pointing out that the crisis of 1895 in Union affairs placed special obligations on the friends of peace in both countries.27 We may follow for a moment the argument of the Storting committee which reported on this request. The committee seized upon the "cardinal point" that the Peace Union would apply arbitration to the issue with Sweden. There was a ref" C f . infra, pp. 107-10, 117-25. 28 Stortings Forhandlinger, 1895, V, dokument p. 617. "/bid., 1896, V, dokument nr. 79.

nr. 124; VI, Indsl. S nr. 229,

62

PEACE UNION: EARLIER

PERIOD

erence in the request to the Storting's very favorable address on arbitration in 1890, but this, said the committee, was beside the point, for that address had not contemplated questions involving "the fatherland's independence and right of self-determination." "No state could place its sovereignty in the hands of an arbitration court." 28 Nor was there any need, in the opinion of the committee, to hire speakers from Sweden or from Denmark to come and plead the cause of arbitration in Norway. The request was therefore denied for the present. But the executives of the Peace Union were asked to clarify some of these points,29 and the committee agreed that there was need of some organ to k e e p p e a c e e f f o r t s in N o r w a y in touch with the B u r e a u

at Berne and with peace developments elsewhere. Much the same line of argument was employed by the Storting committee which reported on a new request in 1899, this time for 4,000 kroner. Again misgiving and apprehension were expressed over the demands of the extremists in the Union concerning matters of arbitration and disarmament. The committee wished to aid a peace periodical but wanted one free of all polemics.30 The Storting was of the same opinion and wished to discuss the matter of a less controversial medium with the officers of the Peace Union. But the prospects of a rapprochement on such a basis were not encouraging. At a meeting in Christiania in 1899, the Union flatly rejected public support if that support was to be given on condition that its periodical be free of all polemical matter. It renewed its demand for public aid, but wanted to leave it to the medium concerned to work for peace in the best and most effective manner. The Storting committee again professed a genuine desire to promote peace work in Norway, but found that it could only recommend, somewhat regretfully, that public support wait until sentiment in 28

Ibid., 1896, VI a, IndsU S nr. 171, p. 419. ™ Ibid., 1896, VII, 1422-31. ™Ibid., 1898-99, V, dokument nr. 16; VI, 508-9.

PEACE UNION: E A R L I E R

PERIOD

63

the Union changed in favor of a medium devoted not to controversy but to "factual exposition." 31 A year later, however, the Storting did indicate that its professions of interest in the Peace Union were genuine (in their way), when it appropriated 1,000 kroner to help defray expenses of the Northern Peace Congress to be held at Skien in 1901. 32 But Bernhard Hanssen was no doubt largely correct when he stated—it was he chiefly who stood guard on the floor of the Storting over the interests of the Peace Union—that the request of 1899 had been denied because many had mistaken the national organization, Norway's Peace Union, for the local branch at Christiania 33 (in which S0rensen and his more radical associates were most vocal). Hanssen implied that if people had recalled clearly that the request came from the national organization, the chances for the appropriation would have been much better. HÀLVDÀN

KOHT

Opposing S0rensen, on the side of the moderates, was Halvdan Koht, a capable young man just beginning a distinguished career in Norwegian public life. Since he was to find time in the midst of manifold other duties to serve the cause of peace in various ways, we may glance at some of his accomplishments,34 bearing in mind that his most consistent work for peace came at the turn of the century. In a figurative sense, Halvdan Koht ( 1 8 7 3 — ) may be said to have come by his interest in the peace cause through "inheritance," for his father was one of the parliamentary members 31 Ibid., 1899-1900, I, vi, 12, pp. 10-12; ii b, meddelelse nr. 2. Ibid., 1900-1901, VII, 976. **Ibid., 1900-1901, V, dokument nr. 2 2 ; VII, 972-76. " See Studentene fra 1890 (Christiania, 1915), pp. 128-34; Sverre Steen, "Halvdan Koht," Norsk Biografale Leksikon, Vol. VII, pp. 520-28; Gustav Indreb*, "Halvdan Koht 50 Aar," Syn og Segn, Vol. X X I X , pp. 241-54; Gustav IndrebfS, "Halvdan Koht 50 Aar," Ung Norig, Vol. VI, pp. 169-77; Hans Amundsen, "Halvdan Koht, Norway's Foreign Minister," American-Scandinavian Review, Vol. XXIII, pp. 341-45. 32

64

PEACE U N I O N : EARLIER

PERIOD

who in 1890 helped to place the Storting on record in the matter of arbitration.85 Young Koht was very active in the Peace Union during its first decade. He was on the executive committee from the beginning in 1895 to 1902 (and again from 1910 to 1912) ; he served as secretary in 1899 and 1900; and he was president from 1900 to 1902. It thus fell to him to preside over the Fourth Scandinavian Peace Congress, which met at Skien in 1901. He found time also to edit Freds-Tidende, and to write surveys of the peace movement in Norway, which still remain the best accounts for the early period.38 When S0rensen successfully made an issue of the disarmament question in 1 9 0 2 , Koht was thrust out of the presidency

of the Peace Union. He was unable, under the precarious conditions brought about by the tie with Sweden, to see how Norway could take the risk of reducing her arms in the face of Sweden's stand on disputed matters. The prevailing military advantages were too patently in favor of Sweden, and, as a good nationalist, Koht had to recognize Norway's incontestable right to defend her autonomy or her independence as she saw fit. Incidentally, he had an opportunity to argue the claims of national independence at some length in 1901, before the all-Scandinavian peace meeting at Skien.37 Such positive ideas on national independence were not to be reconciled offhand with the suggestion (made by Bj0rnson, for instance) that Norway's grievances should be settled by arbitration. Ready to approve the arbitration procedure in principle, Koht was inclined to make an exception of national independence and to consider it a special case in which arbitration would not be valid. This was so, he averred, because international lawhad not advanced far enough to recognize national independ3r>

Cf. infra, pp. 117-19. Cf. his Histoire du mouvement de la paix en Norvège ; his L'Œuvre de l'état norvégien pour rarbitrage et la neutralité; and his Freds-tanken i Noregs-sogo. 37 H. Koht, "Det nasjonale Sj0lvstende Krave og Fredstanken," Freds-Tidende, Vol. I, pp. 48-50; H. Koht, "Striden med Sverige," Det norske Fredsblad, Vol. II, p. 5. 39

PEACE UNION: EARLIER PERIOD

65

enee as an inalienable right; hence there was no assurance that a nation would get justice through arbitration. 38 Individuals might perhaps suffer injustice for the sake of peace, but a nation might not, since individuals within such a nation helped to pass on injustices to their successors and thus became in turn a party to the villainy. 38 Each nation must therefore look to its own defense, as a matter less of right than of duty—a duty to itself as well as to society, since it thereby showed that it stood on a higher moral plane than the attacking aggressor nation. This was not a laudable situation, but fortunately, assumed Koht, it was a temporary one, since eventually the right to national independence would be established as a fundamental principle in international law. Meanwhile it was imperative, especially for a small people like the Norwegian, itself suffering national injustice, to work for the establishment of international relations on an orderly, amicable basis. The previous paragraph suggests the extent to which Koht generalized from his own country's position. The Union with Sweden had been created to insure peace, but it had several times brought Norway to the brink of war. Koht was therefore prepared to abandon it and to substitute a policy of permanent neutrality, though such a policy, he recognized, might have to be defended by force of arms. His readiness to give up the Union was a source of dismay to many peace workers who assumed that Sweden would meet any such move by force of arms and war. Koht conceded that war would not be the "correct procedure" for Norway to follow, but at this time he seems to have been convinced that in any effort to maintain the Scandinavian Union, Sweden never would go so far as to employ force. 40 In short, Koht justified defensive war and, unlike S0rensen, was prepared to exempt from military service only those con38

H. Koht, "Selvetsendighed og Fred," Det norske Fredsblad, Vol. Ill, p. 6. H. Koht, "Fredevennerne og Unionen," Folkets Bind, April 7, 1900. 40 H. Koht, "Striden med Sverige," Det norske Fredsblad, Vol. II, p. 5; Folkets Blad, April 7, 1900. 39

66

PEACE UNION: EARLIER

PERIOD

scientious objectors who had been brought up in religious faiths opposed on principle to military service. 41 At the same time, he did his full share in striving to retain for Norway the good will of Swedish friends of peace. Once the Union had been severed, moreover, he opposed certain boundary fortifications on the plea that Sweden must be faced with no threat of force from the Norwegian side. 42 About the time that Norway separated from Sweden, Koht began to deploy his energies on several fields in which he made a reputation that partially obscures, for the average person, his early services to the Peace Union. In the course of thirty years, he b e c a m e one of the l e a d i n g figures in N o r w a y ' s cultural l i f e .

Trained as a historian, he committed to writing a prodigious amount of scholarship, and it was very appropriate that he should preside over the International Congress of Historians which met at Oslo in 1928. Outside of his own specialty—and he has chosen to interpret that specialty broadly—Koht made decisive contributions in two other fields of public endeavor. He early associated himself with the landsmaal movement 4 3 as well as with the Social Democratic Party—both affiliations which in the nineties required a certain amount of courage on the part of any young man of Koht's background and promise. His advocacy of the landsmaal has had an individual character. In his own compositions he has employed a medium less archaic than many have used, less exclusively West Norwegian in its basis, and more open to usages from the eastern dialects and the speech of the urban workers. Koht's medium has been of an intermediate quality, 44 and it may be noted that certain present-day compromising 4 1 H. Koht, "Vaemepligt og Samviuighedsfrihed," Freds-Tidende, Vol. I, July 1, 1901, p. 25. « H. Koht, "Tillit i Norden," Samtiden, Vol. XVII, pp. 585-86, 590. 4 3 Olav Midttun, "Maalmannen Koht," Syn og Segn, Vol. X X I X (1923), pp. 255-59. 4 4 Cf. H. Koht, "Maalspursmaale no," Syn og Segn, Vol. XVIII (1912), p. 172.

PEACE UNION: EARLIER PERIOD

67

tendencies—their progress due in part to Koht's efforts—seem to point the way out of Norway's language confusion along some similar intermediate road. From 1921 to 1925, Koht was president of Noregs Maallag, a national federation of locals devoted to the advancement of the landsmaal. The second field in which Koht has been active is that of party politics. As early as 1896 he considered himself a Social Democrat, though he did not formally enroll as a member of the party before 1911. He was not so much concerned with the inner affairs of the party as with the publicizing of its principles. In the summer of 1905 he argued earnestly for a republic, and in 1907 he opposed the Integrity Treaty. In 1914 he reminded his compatriots of the heavy responsibility the capitalist system must bear in fomenting war, adding that "only socialism can give the peoples lasting peace." 4 5 He might have said, paradoxically enough, that only nationalism can give peace. For Koht's nationalism—at any rate a good portion of it—has tended to coalesce with his socialism. What appeals to him is not the chauvinism of nationalism but its fraternalism—fraternalism that tends somewhat to equalize the rights and duties, first, of citizens within a local community and, second, of nations within the world community.48 Koht's philosophy is a national socialism in the most legitimate sense of the phrase, that is, in a sense most emphatically the opposite of its caricatures, Fascism or Nazism. Communism too he abjures, fearing lest its endeavor to fit all societies to an identical pattern, without regard to special antecedents or conditions, may arouse unnecessary hostility, especially on the part of those who think it too costly when it demands a surrender of everything belonging to a group's national heritage.47 « H. Koht, " K r i g og F r a m g a n g , " Syn og Segn,

Vol. X X ( 1 9 1 4 ) , p. 394.

H. Koht, " J . L0vland," Den frilyndte Ungdomen, Vol. Ι Π , p p . 3-4. 4 7 H. Koht, " K o m r a u n i s m e og N a s j o n a l t a n k e , " Syn og Segn, Vol. X X I X pp. 363-77.

(1923),

68

PEACE UNION: E A R L I E R

PERIOD

Only infrequently does the peace advocate come to occupy responsible public office in which he may translate his sympathies with the peace cause into concrete action. Such good fortune, however, has come to Koht. When Premier Nygaardsvold organized Norway's first Labor Ministry in 1935 (the seventeen-day Labor government in 1928 existed only on sufferance and had no opportunity to launch a positive policy), he chose Professor Koht as Minister of Foreign Affairs. It was a fortunate choice; Koht could turn to good account his acquaintance with many lands, his years of historical research, and his lifetime of loyalty to the peace cause. There has been, we repeat, a tendency to overlook Koht's

early services to the Peace Union, overshadowed as they have been by his many distinguished accomplishments of later years. But if many other labors have claimed most of his attention, his interest in the peace cause has nevertheless persisted. To speak of only a few of his activities in its service, we may mention that he attended peace congresses at London in 1908, at Chicago and Lake Mohonk in 1909," and at Stockholm in 1910. After the World War broke out, he labored to form a Norwegian section of the Central Organization for a Durable Peace,40 and he participated in various inter-Scandinavian negotiations which wrestled with the problem of maintaining neutrality in the North. In the post-War years he helped to reknit the severed bonds of international scholarship, especially in history; quite appropriately he became, in 1926, the first chairman of the Comité international des sciences historiques, a position he held until 1933. From 1904 to 1913 he served as an adviser (konsulent) at the Nobel Institute, and in 1918 he was elected a member of the Storting's Nobel Committee. In that body, to4 8 Koht has written at some length about the United States. See his: Pengemakt og Arbeid i Amerika (Christiania, 1910) ; Den amerikanske Nasjonen i Upphav og Reising (Christiania, 1920) ; Amerikansk Kultur in the cooperative work Det nittende Aarhundrede (Copenhagen, 1920). 4 9 How he viewed the prospects for peace early in 1917 may be seen in his "Fredsvoner og Fredskrav," Syn og Segn, Vol. XXIII, pp. 17-29.

PEACE U N I O N : E A R L I E R P E R I O D

69

gether with Bernhard Hanssen, he represented for years the traditions of the early days of Norway's Peace Union. His withdrawal from the Committee in November, 1936, in connection with the candidacy of Carl von Ossietzky, was regrettable, though understandable.

VI

THE PEACE UNION: A GENERAL SURVEY T H E Norwegian Peace Union, representing as it does the organized peace sentiment of the country, constitutes a definite factor in that Norwegian background which is our major concern in this study. Without attempting any extended account of the Union we may indicate a few outstanding features of its development in the course of the last four decades. 1 THE

FIRST TWO

DECADES

The first decade of the Union's history was dominated, naturally, by the controversy with Sweden, and was agitated by such questions as arbitration, neutrality, and disarmament. At one time, in fact, these latter issues proved almost too much for it. The crisis of 1895, as we have seen, drove a number of supporters of the peace cause to the point of favoring an increase in the country's armaments. Then, early in 1897, the news of Nobel's magnificent award and the honor he had bestowed upon the Storting gave an extra fillip to the peace endeavors. In short order, new peace societies were formed in various parts of the country, the number of locals soon reaching nearly forty. 2 Another impulse which shortly gave new vigor to work in behalf of peace took its point of departure from the manifesto of the Czar which led in 1899 to the conference at The Hague. This seemed to be the big opportunity for those who advocated a policy of permanent neutrality. The idea of declaring Norway permanently neutral was not new. It had frequently been dis1 Cf. Torkell I. L e v l a n d , " N o r g e s F r e d s f o r e n i n g Venter, August, 1924, p p . 50-51. 2 Det norske Fredsblad, Vol. VI, p. 79.

gjenmcm

40

âr,"

Verden

PEACE UNION:

GENERAL

SURVEY

71

cussed during the previous two decades—Fredrik Bajer had early begun an agitation to make Denmark a neutral state, and many Swedish and Norwegian peace workers had affirmed the value of applying the principle to their states also. Now, in 1899, the favorable hour seemed at last to have struck. In Norway, a petition requesting the government to work at The Hague meeting for general recognition of Norway's neutrality and for the establishment of permanent courts for arbitration between Norway and other states soon accumulated 50,000 signatures. At the turn of the century, this question of neutrality was widely discussed. The Northern Peace Congress at Skien in 1901 reacted to it favorably, and the Storting in 1902 entertained a lengthy report on the subject from a special committee which it had authorized to study the whole matter. An accompanying supplement dwelling upon historical aspects of the question had been prepared by Halvdan Koht. But an opposing set of developments—new complications in relations with Sweden—soon blighted most of the efforts of the organized peace workers in Norway. A new defense program, eagerly supported after the " d e f e a t " of 1895 by some of the more extreme members of the Left, was quietly and efficiently put in operation just after the new century opened. A great deal of national enthusiasm was evoked over the series of border fortifications completed under the direction of Colonel George Stang. 3 Now let the Swedes try their bullying tactics again! But the jingoists among the Swedes did not so much resort to bullying as they accommodated the Norwegian extremists by some timely blundering. As a consequence, in 1905, the consular issue was pushed through to final action, carrying with it, more or less as an incident, the dissolution of the ninety-oneyear-old Union between Sweden and Norway. In the face of such overwhelmingly important national events, a national peace society was of course submerged. There 3

C f . infra,

p. 96.

72

PEACE UNION: GENERAL

SURVEY

was no annual meeting of Norway's Peace Union in 1904, and the local societies almost disappeared. 4 Only a handful of members gathered for the annual meeting in the momentous year 1905. 5 Yet it should not be forgotten that when the separation came it turned out to be a peaceful one. For that circumstance the friends of peace in both countries could claim some share of credit," since, for several years previously, they had been active, in direct and roundabout ways, in seeking to make the cause of one country understood in the other. The second decade of the Peace Union's history was a period of quiescence. What interest was kept alive was concentrated mainly in the western part of the country, especially at Stavanger, where a veteran in the cause, T0nnes Sandst0l, began to issue a paper called Fredsbanneret ("The Peace Banner"). There was not a little discussion in this period of the disabilities resting on conscientious objectors, 7 and at the annual meeting in 1907 a proposal to introduce rifle practice in the schools was warmly debated. 8 T H E WORLD WAR AND AFTER

As in so many other fields of endeavor, the World War acted as a catalyst in the affairs of Norway's Peace Union and gave a disturbed quality to the third decade of the Union's history. It took some time to get over the initial shock of the gigantic slaughter, but eventually the organized efforts for peace moved on to new levels. With hostilities at such close range, the first and all-important matter, engaging the attention of politicians * Randi Blehr, "Fredsarbeidet i Norge," Oversigt over Arbeide og Forhold i Ν orge som berprer de internationale Komileer henhérende under î. C. W. (Christiania, 1920), pp. 63-64, 67. 5 Fred, Vol. VII, August, 1905, p. 114; H. Koht, Freds-tanken i Noregs-sogo, p. 119. « C. Sundblad, op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 161-82. 7 Stavanger Fredsbanner, Vol. I, Jan. 1, 1905. How Norwegian Quakers clung to their anti-militarist principles under pressure is made clear in J. F. Hanson, Light and Shade from the Land of the Midnight Sun, pp. 26-27. 8 Fredsbanneret, August, 1907.

P E A C E UNION: G E N E R A L S U R V E Y

73

and peace workers alike, was the task of maintaining the country's neutrality. Then, as the great conflict wore on, more and more attention was given to the preliminaries that must, when the fighting would some time be discontinued, precede the establishment of peace. Among those who during these years developed a fresh interest in the Peace Union was the novelist, lecturer, and journalist, Hákon L0ken (1859-1923). L0ken's political sympathies were with the Left, and he combatted with equal vigor the claims of the Socialists and of the conservatives. As time went on, he became vitally interested in the peace cause—in the preservation of social peace as well as of international peace. He was a Norwegian representative on the Central Organization for a Durable Peace, and became head of the propaganda section of Henry Ford's Peace Conference of Neutrals, in Stockholm (1917) and at The Hague (1918). In 1919 he became president of Norway's Peace Union, and in 1921, president of the newly formed Northern Peace Federation, holding both positions until his death. During the War the offices of Norway's Peace Union, which for some years had been at Stavanger, were transferred back to Christiania. A wider orbit of activity was developed in 1918 with the formation of the Νordisk Fredsforbund ("The Northern Peace Federation"), an organization to strengthen the efforts of the peace workers in all three of the Scandinavian countries (and after 1928 in Finland as well). When the great struggle came to an end, interest turned to the project of a League of Nations. A League of Nations Union was formed which in 1920 was instrumental in getting all Norwegian peace organizations together in Fredssambandet ("The Peace Federation"), which in turn is affiliated with the Union of League of Nations Associations. Developments such as these probably helped to draw away

74

PEACE UNION: GENERAL

SURVEY

and scatter some of the energies that might have been concentrated in the Peace Union, and in the post-War years the Union quite logically suffered a loss of energy. Only five locals were reported in existence in 1926, though this did not include individual memberships.9 But this poor showing was in turn a prelude to the new period of vigor which has marked the latest decade of the Union's history. By 1933 the records of the society disclosed at least twenty-five active locals.10 This favorable turn was due not least of all to the energetic activities of a new president. Ole Fredrik Olden (1879 ) is a teacher and school administrator by profession, having been superintendent of St. Swithun's school in Stavanger since 1923. His specialties are geography and natural science, but as a publicist he has written on various philosophical and religious questions. Candid and winning in personality and efficient in manner, he makes an effective representative of the peace cause to which he devotes himself most assiduously. He became president of Norway's Peace Union in 1929, and in that connection the headquarters of the society were returned again to Stavanger. Since 1920 he has been on the governing body of the International Fellowship of Reconciliation. Eager to press on to full disarmament,11 he sees the war question in relation to the general social problem of our day.12 His social philosophy comes to expression in the columns of his periodical Verden Venter ("The World Is Waiting") which may be roughly compared to the American monthly called The World Tomorrow. With some religious tinge, his medium speaks most directly for the Left wing in the peace movement.13 When a defunct Christian-Socialist medium in Christiania expired in 1922, it was not 0 Dagbladet, Dec. 13, 1926, p. 5. 1 0 Norges Fredsforening, Forhandlingsprotocol 1925—, 1931-32, 1933-34. 11 Folkefred, Vol. VI, No. 7. ι 2 Cf. Verden Venter, Vol. I, February, 1922, p. 11. "Ibid., Vol. I, p. 5.

Aarsmelding,

1930-31,

PEACE UNION: GENERAL SURVEY

75

without reason that its subscribers were offered instead copies of Verden Venter ALTERNATING C E N T E R S :

CHRISTIANIA AND STAVANGER

By this time the reader is aware that there has been a certain vacillation between Christiania (Oslo since 1925) and Stavanger as centers of peace endeavors. The former is the logical center for a movement of national scope, and it has asserted itself as such whenever there has been a wider interest in the activities of the peace workers. Stavanger, on the other hand, is a provincial center for a special regional interest in the western part of the country, that same regional interest which we have been able to relate to several movements. In a sense, Stavanger is the "capital" of the Quaker, the pietist, and the temperance sentiment in the western part of the country, and these, we know, have all had some influence upon the Norwegian peace movement.15 This vacillation between east and west has had its parallel in the history of the periodicals devoted to the cause. Our earlier discussion of the peace periodicals 16 pointed out that S0rensen's Fred came to an end in 1907. Meanwhile, in the west, Sandst0l had from 1905 conducted a column in the Stavanger Aftenblad under the title Stavanger Fredsbanner ("Stavanger Peace Banner"). Beginning in 1907, this separated out as an independent medium with the name Fredsbanneret ("The Peace Banner") and was left to represent the cause alone after Fred expired. There were occasional efforts to give the eastern part of the country a new medium, but for a decade they were unsuccessful. Thus, in 1908, certain proposals might have materialized if Chr. L. Lange, Secretary of the Nobel Committee, had not been made Secretary-General of the Inter-Parliamentary Union and 14 15 16

Ibid., Vol. I, pp. 16, 30.

Supra, pp. 38-41. Cf. supra, pp. 60-61.

76

PEACE U N I O N : G E N E R A L

SURVEY

thus had his energies transferred to the international field.17 Not until 1917, in the midst of the Great War, was a periodical again started in Christiania. By agreement, Sandst0l dropped Fredsbanneret (being paid 1000 kroner in recognition of his services), and the Peace Union began to issue Folkefred ("International Peace"), which was edited first by Carl Bonnevie and later by Hanna Isaachsen. But this venture proved short-lived; Folkefred expired in 1923 when the Storting failed to grant a subvention to the Peace Union. The west acquired its own organ again early in 1922, when Olden launched his Verden Venter. Essentially, this was a private venture, though the Stavanger local gave it some support. The annual meeting of the Peace Union at Bergen in 1924 decided to take over Verden Venter as the Union's official medium. Olden remained editor and retained full freedom in matters of policy, but it was stipulated that a certain definite amount of space was to be at the disposal of the officers of the Peace Union.18 COLLATERAL SUPPORT FROM O T H E R GROUPS

Outside of the strict limits of the Peace Union, the work for peace has been able to enlist a measure of support—it might be called a collateral support—from certain organized groups whose initial concern is with some interest other than peace, usually a professional one. The chief groups which have thus given increasing support to the peace cause are the teachers, the pastors, the workers, and the organized women. No woman in the early period assisted the peace cause so decisively as Didrikke ("Dikka") Anette M0ller (1838-1912), who belonged to the well-known Anker family. 19 It was at her home near Fredrikstad that Bj0rnson wrote his oratorio Peace, " Fredsbanneret, Vol. VI, May, 1910, p. 19. 18 Norges Fredsforening, Forhandlingsprotocol 1916-24, communication of Sept. 25, 1924, signed by Bernhard Hanssen. 19 She was a sister of Herman Anker. There is a sketch, more appreciative than critical, by Mathilde Schj0tt, "Dikka M0ller f. Anker," Freds-Tidende,

P E A C E U N I O N : GENERAL S U R V E Y

77

and it was with some financial assistance from her that Norway's Peace Society got under way in 1895. 20 She was active in the administration of the society and in 1898-99 served a year as its president. When Halvdan Koht wrote his Histoire du mouvement de la paix en Norvège, Dikka M0ller helped to defray the expenses of distributing a thousand copies among delegates to the International Peace Congress at Paris in 1900. 21 Other women who actively supported the peace cause in the early days were Marie Smith,22 of Larvik, and Birgit Weltzin S0rensen, wife of N. J . S^rensen. For the later period, we mention only one or two names. Hanna Isaachsen edited Folkefred from 1919 to 1923 and argued firmly for social conscription to replace military conscription. Randi Blehr served a long term as president of the Women's Peace Society of Norway, succeeding Dikka M0ller, who had founded this organization in the nineties.23 Among teachers, the desire to cooperate more closely with the peace movement and the Peace Union led in 1919 to the formation of a Teacher's Peace Committee. Its chairman since 1920 has been 0 . G. J . Devik (1856—) who has given a lifetime of service to the common schools, chiefly in the vicinity of Oslo. Efforts to organize the pastors of the country in favor of the peace movement seem associated especially with the Bergen local of the Norwegian Peace Society—Arnt 0ksnevad (1863 — ) has been an active figure here. Steps were taken which led in the fall of 1914 to the formation of a Norwegian Pastors' Peace Union, which has shown its interest in peace by soliciting offerings in the churches 24 to help support Norway's Peace Vol. II, May 10, 1902, pp. 35-40, reprinted in Stavanger Fredsbanner, Vol. II, Dec. 14, 1906; cf. Fredsbanneret, Vol. V, July, 1909, pp. 29-30; Vol. VIII, December, 1912, p. 45. 20 Det norske Fredsblad, Vol. VI, p. 6. " Freds-Tidende, Vol. I, July 1, 1901, p. 27. 22 Det norske Fredsblad, Vol. Ill, nos. 3-4 (double number), p. 1. 28 Fred, Vol. VIII, pp. 43-44; H. Koht, Freds tanken i Noregs-sogo, p. 147. 2 4 Cf. Stortings Forhandlinger, 1921, VI a, ii, Indst. S nr. 63.

78

PEACE UNION: GENERAL

SURVEY

Union. For a time ( 1 9 1 9 - 2 2 ) , the Pastors' Peace Union issued a publication of its own called Fred paa J orden ("Peace on Earth"). THE SOCIAL DEMOCRATS AND "BOURGEOIS" PEACE EFFORTS

The political interest of the well-organized working class in Norway is represented in what is to all intents and purposes the successor of the old Social Democratic Party, namely, the Norwegian Labor Party. Both of these have been deeply influenced by the philosophy of Socialism, and in Norway as elsewhere Socialists have declaimed loudly against war, that is, against w a r as an i n s e p a r a b l e concomitant of the capitalist

system.

Their solution, as all know, is to abolish war by taking steps to have that system overturned, and to substitute one which presumably gives the advantage to the forces working for peace. Though opposed to the war system, the Socialists have been most reluctant about cooperating with "bourgeois" efforts to combat war. 25 In 1 9 1 2 the Social Democrats in the Storting emphatically registered their disapproval of "bourgeois" peace efforts when they retired from the Storting's Inter-Parliamentary group. This action grew out of their demand of the previous year that the Peace Prize f o r the year be withheld (this would be the first time) as a protest against Italy's war in Tripoli. 20 What was the use, asked Socialist speakers in 1 9 1 2 , of passing the customary estimates for various peace endeavors side by side with the military estimates? This anomaly, they insisted, was possible only because the "official" peace workers in the Storting, those busily attending to the affairs of the InterParliamentary Union, were the most unabashed militarists when it came to making armament appropriations for their own country. The Storting was relying more and more on military power, 2 5 Cf. "Nobelkomiteen," Social-Demokraten, 1912, No. 294, p. 3, and the issue of July 1, 1913. 2 6 "Nobelsfredspris b0r ikke utdeles Iaar," Social-Demokraten, Dec. 6, 1911, p. 1 ; "Nobelprisen," ibid., 1912, No. 294, p. 3.

PEACE UNION: GENERAL SURVEY

79

not on treaties ; no longer was it true to its onetime reputation of being an assembly of peace. 27 Yet the labors of the Socialists and the "bourgeois" opponents of war have not been completely divorced, for on both sides there have been individuals who have sought to enlist energies in the other camp. A good example, for our purpose, of a Social Democrat who has interested himself in peace endeavors outside the party is Bonnevie. Carl Emil Christian Bonnevie ( 1 8 8 1 — ) , 2 8 the son of a former Cabinet member, specialized in law and held several positions of a legal character before he represented a northerly constituency in the Storting of 1912-15 (he again held a seat in 1934-36). Bonnevie has all along opposed the restrictive and self-sufficient tendencies of Norwegian Socialism. As he sees it, the party should reach out and collaborate with various other tendencies which are likewise moved by ideas of a socialized society. Hence he has been much interested in the cooperative movement, on the one hand, 29 and in the "bourgeois" peace endeavors on the other.30 In particular he has seen some virtue in the demand for arbitration. In 1909 he tried to commit his party, with labor organizations of other countries, to a pledge that no country would receive the support of labor in time of war unless it had first submitted its case to arbitration—in other words, unless it first had proven its good faith in the matter of peace. 31 On this and related questions Bonnevie therefore was at odds with many in his party, and he did not stand for reëlection to the Storting in 1915. Bonnevie has made practical demonstration of the sincerity of his ideas about cooperation with non-Socialist peace endeav27 Stortings Forhandlinger, 1912, VII, 147-48, 330-32, 2 0 4 6 ; 1915, VII, 420-27; J u l y 1, 1913. cf. " N o b e l k o m i t e e n , " Social-Demokraten, 28 Folkefred, Vol. I l l , October, 1919, p. 73. 2 9 Cf. his Kommunal socialisme og Kooperation (Christiania, 1 9 1 4 ) . 3 0 Cf. his Fredens Opgaver (Christiania, 1917), pp. 5, 7. 3 1 Carl Bonnevie, "Bekjaempelse av Krigen i F r e d s t i d , " Social-Demokraten, April 1, 1909.

80

PEACE UNION: GENERAL

SURVEY

ors. From 1916 to 1924 he was on the executive committee of Norway's Peace Union, and from 1926 to 1929 he was its president. For a year or two he edited Folkefred. In 1919 he was secretary of the Norwegian League of Nations Union. Perhaps it would seem that Bonnevie might better be cited as a "bourgeois" peace worker interested in Socialism than as a Socialist interested in "bourgeois" peace work. In a sense, this may be true for the later period of his career. But his case serves to remind us that within the "bourgeois" Peace Union, too, there have been those who have sympathized or do sympathize with much in the Socialist program. One may think in this connection of the Peace Union's current president, 0 . F. Olden. The professional peace advocates have been invited by Halvard M. Lange to align themselves more definitely with the workers' movement.32 Over on the opposite wing, some, of course, have preferred to keep the Peace Union quite clear of Socialist influence. 33 The safely "bourgeois" Aftenposten has, logically enough from its point of view, demanded that grants to the Peace Union from the public treasury shall, if made at all, be made only on condition that the Union cease spreading the doctrine of Socialism under the guise of peace propaganda, and that it purge itself of those "angels of peace" who clamor for disarmament and simultaneously preach class hatred. 84 Of late, the Peace Union has had to concern itself anew with the question of armament and defense. This time it is not a matter of reducing the country's military preparations, but of agreeing in what measure they should be strengthened in the face of the desperate international situation. Mussolini's defiance of the League in Ethiopia and Hitler's rearmament program, as well as the international complications of the Spanish revolt, have quite dispelled the disarmament sentiment which by the early Dagbladet, December 11, 1925. Cf. T . Sandstßl, Avvœbningsspfrgsmaalel og den socialistiske (Stavanger, 1 9 1 5 ) , pp. 4, 15-16. 3 4 " E n socialistisk F r e d s f o r e n i n g , " Aftenposten, Nov. 2, 1931. 32

33

Fredspolitik

PEACE UNION: GENERAL SURVEY

81

thirties was on the point of influencing public policy, especially in some of the smaller states. It is not without significance that the vice-president of Norway's Peace Union has recently affirmed that the peace workers particularly are under obligation to raise and consider the question of national defense. He has defended its legitimacy in a somewhat restricted and non-military sense; serious attention, he thinks, should be given by the Norwegian government to the construction of gas-proof underground shelters and of depositories for archives and works of art, just as techniques should be developed whereby in case of bombardment governmental offices may be shifted to the interior and urban populations be transferred to the safer countryside."5 In bringing to a close Part Two of our study we may remind the reader that in the foregoing chapters we have discussed some aspects of the society in which the Nobel Committee and the Norwegian Nobel Institute have to carry on their work. We have seen, for instance, how the efforts to organize the peace sentiment in Norway between 1880 and 1895 were unsuccessful, how a commanding figure like Bj0rnson lent his support to the peace cause, how a Peace Union was finally organized in 1895, how its development in the early years was seriously affected by the exigencies of the controversy with Sweden, how the Peace Union has had its alternating periods of decline and revival, and how its aims have been variously supported by a number of other organized interests. And we have stopped on occasion to look a bit more closely at the careers of two or three individuals who have had an important part to play in the administration of the Peace Prize. But before we can pass to the agencies administering the Prize, we must first turn in Part Three to see something of the Storting which has a certain responsibility for the Nobel Committee which awards the Prize. ss W. Keilhau, "September 1936," Samtiden, Vol. XLVII, pp. 453-56. Cf. a rejoinder by the chairman of Norway's Defense Union, ibid., pp. 511-15.

PART THREE THE STORTING AND THE PEACE CAUSE

VII

THE SWEDISH-NORWEGIAN TENSION ( 1 8 9 2 - 9 5 ) AND L A T E R POLITICAL DEVELOPMENTS H A V I N G decided to entrust the administration of his Peace Prize to some Norwegian agency, Nobel might have considered several possibilities. He might, for instance, have selected an academic body such as the Norwegian Academy of Science at Oslo, or a political body like the Norwegian Cabinet or some committee acting under its authorization. Instead, he chose to specify a committee chosen by the Storting. Since he selected the Storting for this responsibility, we may look more closely at this parliamentary body and try to understand the circumstances under which it did its work, especially in the decade of the nineties. T H E STORTING AS A PARLIAMENTARY

BODY

Viewed from the standpoint of the student of political science, the Norwegian Storting is in some ways a unique body. As constituted since 1814, it combines features of the unicameral and bicameral systems; it is both a one-chamber body and a twochamber body. Chosen for three-year terms, its members proceed, after each election, to organize for the term by electing one-fourth of their number to constitute a Lagting, a sort of upper house, while the remaining three-fourths make up the Odelsting. Each of the three bodies—Storting, Lagting, Odelsting—organizes itself in regular parliamentary fashion, with its own president and vice-presidents. A good deal of the public business, perhaps most of it, is done in the Storting as a single body, but in the handling of

86

TENSION AND LATER

HISTORY

certain specified matters a bicameral procedure is followed. A bill in these categories is introduced in the Odelsting and if passed goes to the smaller Lagting, becoming law if approved here also. If rejected, it is returned to the Odelsting, possibly with some comment. The Odelsting may do one of several things: it may drop the proposal, modify it, or repass it in the original form. In case the Lagting rejects it a second time, the matter goes before the full body of the Storting—Odelsting and Lagting here lose their identity—but in order to be adopted it must attain a two-thirds majority. The Storting is not a large body as parliamentary assemblies go. In 1 9 1 9 its m e m b e r s h i p w a s fixed at 1 5 0 , but in the nineties

it numbered only 114. That was the figure set in the constitution of 1814, and there it stood until after the turn of the century. The same constitution specified an arbitrary ratio of representation distributing one-third of the seats to urban constituencies and the remaining two-thirds to rural voters. Hence the deliberations have often been responsive to the reactions of a rural society. For more than ninety years—that is, during the Union with Sweden—the Storting remained in a somewhat anomalous position relative to its executive. That executive was a joint monarchy. Theoretically the Bernadottes were as much kings of Norway as kings of Sweden. But practically the fact could not be overlooked that the royal family had secured its succession to the Swedish throne first, and its succession to the throne of Norway only in the second instance. Moreover, Sweden was wealthier, more populous, and distinctly better known. Hence it could not be helped that the Bernadottes, if not in form at any rate in fact, regarded their first kingdom as the premier one. T H E CONDUCT OF NORWEGIAN FOREIGN

AFFAIRS

In the late eighties and early nineties various issues complicated relations between the Storting and the Monarch. Behind

T E N S I O N AND LATER H I S T O R Y

87

the latter stood, of course, a goodly portion of his Swedish subjects, and the issue in a larger sense was one between Sweden and Norway. At times the tension between them became very great, as in 1895—the year, it may be recalled, when the two countries fretted themselves into a crisis which threatened to eventuate in armed hostilities. One must know how the Storting pressed its case during these critical years in order to understand better its attitude on some of the questions relating to international peace. The first major issue between Sweden and Norway at this time had to do with foreign affairs. The arrangements of 1814-15, upon which the Union between Norway and Sweden was based, had practically nothing to say on the subject of foreign affairs and how they were to be conducted. Certain clauses specified how joint affairs were to be handled but only by implication could these be held to apply to foreign affairs. There were several reasons for this vagueness. In the first place, in 1814 Norway had no tradition of her own in matters of foreign policy. She had for centuries been united in a union with Denmark, and the court of the Oldenburgs had taken care of its own foreign affairs. Norway's citizens were therefore not fully alive, in 1814, to the importance of having definite arrangements to cover the conduct of foreign relations. In the second place, at the opening of the nineteenth century, foreign affairs were still considered pretty much the private affair of a sovereign. They were still looked upon as dynastic concerns in the narrow family sense. And in the third place, Norway in 1814-15 had adapted herself to a monarchy already possessing a smoothly operating machinery for the administration of foreign affairs, with a long and distinguished tradition behind it. Why bother, therefore, to duplicate this arrangement? As it then functioned, that machinery took its form from provisions in the Swedish constitution of 1809. This basic law left the conduct of foreign affairs to the king assisted by a so-called

88

TENSION

"Ministerial"

AND

Cabinet. This

LATER

HISTORY

Cabinet was

composed

of

the

Swedish Foreign Minister and one other royal minister. The Act of Union between the two kingdoms ( 1 8 1 5 ) made no reference to the conduct of foreign affairs, and in the absence of any specifications it apparently was taken more or less f o r granted that the monarch's current arrangement f o r dealing with foreign a f f a i r s — i t should be remembered that as a Union king he was a joint monarch—would suffice to dispose also of Norwegian matters. A separate Norwegian consular system was thought of, but was not established, chiefly for reasons of economy. Swedish consuls were authorized to take care also of Norwegian interests. It ie true that Paragraph Five of the Act of Union clearly specified how matters of joint import to the two kingdoms were to be handled. When the king was in Sweden three Norwegian Ministers were to sit with his Swedish Ministry as a SwedishNorwegian Cabinet, to deal with matters of joint concern. Likewise, when he happened to be in Norway, three of his Swedish Ministers were to sit with his Norwegian Ministry as a Norwegian-Swedish Cabinet, also to deal with matters of joint concern. In fair probability there were those in 1814-15 who assumed that the phrase "joint concern," referring first and foremost to domestic matters, would also include foreign affairs, but the fact remained that there was no mention of

foreign

affairs in this connection in the Act of Union. Those affairs, as we have already seen, were being taken care of in a special " M i n i s t e r i a l " Cabinet. 1 In brief then, a combination of drift and circumstance had left the conduct of Norwegian foreign affairs to proceed essentially through Swedish channels. 1 There are brief but clear discussions of these and the following complications in: H. L. Brœkstad, The Constitution of Norway (London, 1905), especially pp. xxv-xxvi, 68-69, and J. Utheim, Vort Udenrigsstyre (Horten, 1891), especially pp. 9-12.

T E N S I O N AND LATER HISTORY

89

ATTEMPTS TO MODIFY THE CONDUCT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

But an independent nationality—and Norwegians thought of themselves as nationally independent after 1814—could not in the long run put up with this arrangement. A few minor changes had been effected before the crisis of the late eighties and early nineties developed. In recognition of the fact that the "Ministerial" Cabinet—composed of only the Swedish Foreign Minister and one other Swedish adviser—hardly gave Norway an adequate voice, a change was made in 1835 (by royal resolution, not needing confirmation by any parliamentary body), enlarging this Cabinet to include also one of the three Norwegian ministers resident at the Swedish capital as members of the joint Swedish-Norwegian Cabinet. For half a century this arrangement seemed to run along without major complaint, and when a question was raised again in 1885 it was a Swedish move which precipitated an issue. Led by a Swedish liberal faction which hoped to bring the conduct of foreign affairs more directly under Riksdag control—as conducted in the "Ministerial" Cabinet, it escaped practically all control—the Riksdag in 1885 enlarged the Swedish membership of the "Ministerial" Cabinet from two to three, and narrowed the King's discretion by specifying that reports on diplomatic matters were to be made by the Foreign Minister. Though it was hardly the intention to restrict their influence, the Norwegians, since they had only one Minister in the "Ministerial" Cabinet, interpreted this change as a direct encroachment—as an endeavor to shift the control of foreign affairs from the Norwegian king to the Swedish government. A new proposal the next year would have given Norway and Sweden three representatives each on the "Ministerial" Cabinet and would have definitely recognized the Swedish nationality of the Foreign Minister who would be in charge. But the Norwegians demurred, and for the next few years the matter was quiescent.

90

TENSION AND LATER

HISTORY

Yet the King was anxious to come to some definitive arrangement, and after preliminary soundings the matter was taken up again in 1891. The new Swedish offer was quite accommodating, and some satisfactory agreement might now have been reached had not a Swedish minister, chiefly to conciliate a certain reluctant wing of opinion at home, thrust into the discussion an unnecessary and tactless reminder that any concession to Norway on foreign affairs was quite gratuitous, since the basic documents of 1814-15 certainly guaranteed her no share in the conduct of foreign affairs. Norwegian opinion was at once stirred to a high pitch of excitement, for it was becoming extremely sensitive on this matter of foreign affairs. The Storting voted a resolution asserting in principle its right to administer its own affairs. There was an election in the fall of 1891, and the party of the Left, prodded by Bj0rnson, began to demand nothing less than a separate foreign minister for Norway. The Left won the election well enough and did so largely on this popular issue, but by the time the Storting met in 1892 its Ministry had decided upon a new tactic and allowed the question of a foreign minister to slumber. T H E AGITATION FOR A SEPARATE

CONSULAR

SYSTEM

The new tactic was to demand a liquidation of the prevailing consular arrangement, and the establishment of a separate and completely independent Norwegian consular system. In contrast with the question of a separate foreign minister, the demand for a separate consular system, many liberals held, could be put through on Norwegian initiative alone without consultation with Sweden. Besides, here was a less ambiguous question. From the very outset, in 1814, Norwegians had understood that they had a full right to establish their own consular system whenever they chose. On this point, they believed, the Swedes could not gainsay them.

TENSION AND L A T E R H I S T O R Y

91

But the question had also a very practical aspect. In the course of the nineteenth century the Norwegian merchant marine had far outstripped the Swedish in tonnage, and Norway's share of certain shipping dues earmarked for consular purposes far exceeded Sweden's. Thus for a term in 1897-98, the contribution from Norway's side was 213,000 kroner while the corresponding Swedish figure was only 93,000 kroner. With the Norwegian merchant fleet so active on the seven seas, there naturally were some ports which interested the Swedes very little, but at which Norwegians were anxious to have consular officials posted. The Norwegians had little to complain of, however, in regard to the personnel of the service; fully half of the regularly assigned consuls might be Norwegians.2 But shipping interests were directly concerned, and good patriots generally felt they must respond to such a national issue. The party of the Left had here struck a popular cause. Under the leadership of its "general staff"—most conspicuous were Horst and Ullmann, who are to engage our attention later—a major offensive was entered upon. In June of 1892 the Storting adopted a proposal to appropriate moneys to take preliminary steps looking toward a separate consular system. The King and his Swedish government objected, on the ground that this matter should be treated not as a purely Norwegian, but as a joint Swedish-Norwegian, matter. The issue was squarely joined; either the Norwegians were independent in this matter or they were not. A vital point about the nationality of the foreign minister, a point jealously reserved by the Swedish authorities in 1891, was quite freely offered as a concession in 1893, but to no avail. For Storting and Crown had entered upon a long period of tension and disturbance, eventuating in the crisis of 1895. Ministries resigned and the King refused to accept their resignations; the Storting occasionally refused to transact business and at times literally went on strike. Once or twice it 2

O. Gjerlflw, fforges Politiske Historie, Vol. II, p. 61.

92

TENSION

AND

LATER

HISTORY

attempted to cripple the foreign service. Thus in 1893 it attached to its appropriation of Norway's share of moneys for the joint service a reservation to the effect that Norway's share of the expenses for the Legation at Vienna would not be granted in 1894, and a year later it repeated this action. At another time, it rather pettily chose to annoy the royal family. In 1893 the King's civil list was reduced by 80,000 kroner, from 336,000 to 256,000 kroner, and that of the Crown Prince by 50,000 kroner,

from 80,000 to 30,000.3 From time to time it passed

measures affecting the consular issue, only to have them vetoed forthwith. The stop-gap conservative Stang ministry (1893-95) was steadily harassed by the parliamentary majority, and by 1895 the tension had become a crisis of the first magnitude. A

CRITICAL

YEAR:

1895

It will be worth while to review in some detail the events of the year 1895. As the winter wore on, debates in the Swedish Riksdag grew increasingly acrimonious. On the 18th of March the King asked for the appointment of the "Secret Committee" — a n ominous move, since this body, which considered matters that must be kept privy (in the present instance relations with N o r w a y ) , had last been employed in 1853, in the Crimean War. Early in the spring the Queen's personal effects were hurriedly removed from her summer home near Kongsvinger in eastern Norway and brought to Sweden. On the 11th of May the Swedish government gave notice that it was terminating the customs union with Norway. Four days later, in passing an appropriation to cover the deficiency created by the Storting's reduction of the civil list, the Riksdag took occasion to ask the King for certain changes in the Act of Union. And on the 17th of May—that the action fell on this day was perhaps not intentional, but the Norwegians took note that it was their national holiday—the Riksdag increased the "small" as well as the 3

Ibid., Vol. II, p. 124. The full sums were not voted again until 1898.

TENSION A N D LATER HISTORY

93

"large" war credit from a combined total of 7,500,000 to 15,000,000 kroner. The debates on these appropriations showed how the war spirit was rising, while the Swedish press indulged in unrestrained saber-rattling. At the beginning of June a change in the foreign ministry showed the drift of sentiment. The conciliatory Count Lewenhaupt, who in 1892 had offered the Norwegians a memorable olive branch, was replaced by the Junker-bred Count Douglas, who wished to try a policy of blood and iron on the Norwegians. For weeks military preparations had been noticeable along the Swedish-Norwegian frontier; war materials were being assembled and troops were moving forward. It seems certain that Swedish military men worked out a "war plan," contemplating rapid marches on Christiania and on Trondhjem so as to give control of the main Norwegian trade artery. "Thereafter," seemed to be the idea, it might be feasible to have drawn up a new Norwegian constitution and a new and "improved" Act of Union. Extremists on both sides were getting the upper hand. Fortunately, soberer counsels prevailed in Christiania. All parties and groups came to the conclusion that elements in Sweden were prepared to used armed force. Consequently, on the 7th of June, the Storting backed down. It called for a fresh start and proposed to initiate new negotiations on a broad basis, which should guarantee the equality and independence of each partner within the Union. To make its retreat complete, it restored a month later those appropriations for the diplomatic service which it had withheld during the two previous years. Conciliatory endeavors began none too soon. The forces bearing toward war retained much of their momentum throughout the summer. The Storting voted more moneys for heavy defenses, and the Swedish chauvinists redoubled their agitation. However, the conciliatory program of the Norwegian moderates gradually eased the tension. In October, the coalition Hagerup minis-

94

T E N S I O N AND L A T E R

HISTORY

try (1895-98) was formed to put that program into practice. INCREASING

ARMAMENT

The tension of the spring and summer left, however, another and less pacific aftermath. Some Norwegians concluded that the lesson of the crisis was that Norway had been humiliated because she had inadequately developed her military strength. Questions of army policy had been the subject of lengthy debates in 1885 and 1887. The sentiment of the dominant Left majority uniformly advocated restrictions on appropriations for the troops of the line (looked upon as more directly an arm of the mona r c h y ) and favored a m o r e liberal policy with reference to the

reserve troops and the Rifle Clubs (regarded as being more sympathetic with the Storting). This was the spirit in which certain appropriations were made, also in 1893. But as the crisis over the consular question grew more strained, sentiment changed in favor of strengthening all defenses and all branches of the service without distinction. An extra appropriation of 500,000 kroner in 1894 was intended primarily to start construction of torpedo boats and to increase certain sea mines. As the winter of 1895 wore on, uneasiness increased, and a few communities took steps to supply themselves with arms. 4 Early in April, a representative in the Storting caused no little stir when he insisted that there must be an increase in armaments without delay if the Norwegians were to escape from their "subordinate" relation to Sweden and assure the future independence and freedom of their country. He had not long to wait for action. Budget estimates introduced in the middle of April allotted for armament purposes 7,000,000 kroner, of which about half was to go to the army, partly for new Krag-J0rgensen rifles and ammunition, and about half to the navy as an appropriation toward building the country's first ironclad man-of-war, the "Harald Haarfagre." Pre* Cf. ibid., Vol. II, p. 175.

TENSION

AND

LATER

HISTORY

95

viously, the country really had possessed no navy, and this branch of the service had to be newly created. Late in June and early in July—hence, after the Storting had backed down in the face of Swedish threats—it was decided to add new coast defenses at Bergen, Christianssand, and Trondhjem and to authorize a second ironclad. There were large increases, also, in the allowances for the local Rifle Clubs. T o help cover these expenditures the Storting appropriated 8,000,000

kroner—a

progressive income-tax levy formed part of the program—and a domestic loan of 12,000,000 kroner was authorized. Those who had feared an armament race with Sweden were now to see their worst fears realized. One disconcerting aspect of this eagerness to arm was the fact that some of the leading proponents of increased armament came from that same aggressive wing of the Left which had harbored the zealous proponents of the peace cause and which had made a party matter of the issue of arbitration. It was traditionally members of the Left—"defense-nihilists," as they were dubbed by their opponents—who had been most eager to oppose armaments. But from the midst of that same Left now stood forth a set of extremists, among them Konow from Hedemarken and Johan Castberg, who within a decade pushed to completion a vigorous defense program. Under a succession of able defense ministers—Olss0n (1895-98), Hoist (1898-1900), and Georg Stang (1900-1903)—the country's defenses were expanded and modernized. While the ordinary military budget doubled, the extraordinary appropriations from 1895 on ran up toward 60,000,000 kroner.

In addition to the ironclads provided for

in 1895, two further men-of-war were authorized in 1898. With various auxiliary craft under construction, Norway was getting something of

a navy. Fortifications were strengthened

and

brought up to date at the harbor entrances to Christiania, Christianssand, Bergen, and Trondhjem. Younger officers were provided for the army, clothing and military equipment was

96

TENSION AND LATER HISTORY

renewed, and practice maneuvers and mobilizations were arranged. Georg Stang (1858-1907), especially, became the darling and idol of the aggressive Left. His practical lessons in modem warfare he had learned as an observer of American operations before Santiago in 1898. As Minister of Defense he set out to place Norway without delay in a position to meet "eventualities" with Sweden by 1903. Much to the consternation of his own military experts, he ordered new types of ordnance from obscure firms in Germany; the Schneiders and the Krupps later substantiated his judgment by adopting the same systems. Then he set about to p l u g the last m a j o r g a p in N o r w a y ' s d e f e n s e —

the exposed condition of her eastern frontier, which invited a "promenade" by Swedish troops to Christiania. This he did by having constructed a series of barrier forts along the frontier from Fredriksten to Kongsvinger. These seemed to the Swedes, and even to some Norwegians, unnecessarily provocative, but when completed they gave many Norwegians a sense of security they had previously lacked. It was a somewhat different Norway which, mindful of the lesson of 1895, faced Sweden from 1903 on.5 CONCILIATION

AND N E W

CONTROVERSY:

THE

UNION

DISSOLVED

In this period of increasing armament, the coalition ministry of Hagerup (1895-98) set about to ease the tension of 1895 by authorizing a joint Union Committee—the third since 1814—to reconsider the whole question of the relation of the two states to one another. (To the Swedes, revision of the Union was always apt to imply an increase in the number of political functions exercised jointly, while Norwegians preferred to have it mean a reduction of them, if possible.) While the committee was at 5 Sweden's defense program, of course, was not so much concerned with Norway as with the threat of Slavic expansion. This was especially true after 1899, when Finland's autonomy was challenged.

T E N S I O N A N D LATER H I S T O R Y

97

work, Union matters were quiescent. It completed its labors in 1898 but the results were nugatory. Four separate reports issued from its deliberations, and none was acted upon. As a natural result, the Hagerup coalition government lost prestige. Control then passed to the Left under the ministries of Steen (1898-1902) and Blehr (1902-3). Several proposals of the Left were pushed anew. There were extensions of the suffrage ( 1898, 1901), while a bill to remove the Union sign from the Norwegian flag was passed over the royal veto for the third time, thus finally becoming law. The critical consulate question was taken up again, this time with a show of good will from the Swedish side. Prospects for a settlement were bright after a joint committee had agreed to separate consuls for each kingdom, both services to be responsible to a joint ministry of foreign affairs. When it came to the implementing of this arrangement, however, the Swedes proved cautious and began to make new conditions. As a result, the Left, in turn, faced the elections of 1903 with lessened prestige. What was more, it suffered a serious defection when its ranks were deserted by certain selfstyled "liberals," dissatisfied not only with the consular negotiations but also with the policies adopted by the Left in order to liquidate the financial crisis which had hit Christiania at the turn of the century. These "liberals" joined with the Right in favoring moderation in Union affairs and negotiation with Sweden—Bj0rnson had not a little to do with the rapprochement between these elements—and when the elections were over this coalition party had won a majority. Hagerup was called upon to organize his second Ministry (1903-5). The stage should now have been set for a peaceful settlement of the issues with Sweden. The Ministry made several conciliatory moves, but these advances were apparently mistaken for weakness by the Swedish Prime Minister Boström, who finally brought the consular question to a head by insisting upon certain reservations which seemed to leave Norway in the position of a

98

T E N S I O N AND L A T E R

HISTORY

dependency. This was the last move needed to bring Norwegians of all parties together; by early 1905, all were resolved upon common action and prepared to face the consequences. A new Ministry was formed under the leadership of Christian Michelsen of Bergen, a member of the moderate Left, and it was decided to push the consulate matter to a final showdown. A law was passed providing for a separate consular system, to go into operation by April 1, 1906. As expected, it was vetoed by the Crown, which also refused to accept the Cabinet's resignation on this issue. Having perfected its plans at a long night session on June 6, 1 9 0 5 , the Storting, at a short but very tense meeting of barely

half an hour's duration the next forenoon, declared the Union with Sweden at an end. It justified its action on the technicality that the monarchy, not being able to command a responsible Ministry, had ceased to be the sovereign of Norway. Simultaneously it requested the Ministry, which had just resigned power into its hands, to carry on with the full authority of the constitution and the prevailing laws. A Norwegian plebiscite on August 13 ratified the fait accompli by a vote of 368,208 to 184. With the action taken on June 7, the ninety-one-year-old Swedish-Norwegian Union had ceased to be. But it had been brought to its end by unilateral action, and no one appreciated so well as Michelsen that there would be "consequences." He was therefore fully resolved to pay a price, a heavy price if need be, to liquidate the action by peaceful means. There were others, less far-sighted and more intransigent than he, who had given little consideration to this matter and who violently objected to the price once it became known in the form of the Karlstad agreement. This agreement, formulated in the late summer of 1905, confirmed the dissolution of the Union but exacted certain concessions in return. These concessions greatly disturbed the Norwegian extremists. The provision that there was to be a neutral

TENSION AND LATER HISTORY

99

zone extending along both sides of the Swedish-Norwegian frontier, from the Kattegat north to the sixty-first degree of latitude, was a stipulation especially galling to the sensitive patriots who were reveling in the newly won independence. What rankled most was the fact that this stipulation would cost Norway the barrier fortresses which Georg Stang had brought into being with such éclat. In the midst of this resentment there was some tendency to forget that the Karlstad arrangement dealt also with several other matters including an agreement, brought forward on Norwegian initiative, that future disputes between the two peoples were to be settled by arbitration at The Hague. Meanwhile the Norwegians had a diplomatic question to consider. What sort of a reception would their new state meet in the courts of Europe? There was some fear of isolation and, consequently, a desire to cultivate friends wherever possible. This was certainly one of the factors which acted as a damper on the sentiment in favor of a republic. The plebiscite, which by a vote of 259,563 to 96,264 showed a preference for monarchy, was no measure of the real strength of republican sentiment. Not without significance in this connection was the award of the Peace Prize for 1906 to President Roosevelt—an award which could hardly help but strengthen the sympathies of the great republic of the West for the most recently emancipated national state. Again, the question of national security was a matter of real concern to the new and inexperienced Foreign Office. In 1907, under L,0vland's leadership, it negotiated an "Integrity Treaty" to replace the old "November Treaty" of 1855. According to the latter France and England had guaranteed the territorial integrity of Sweden-Norway against Russia. The new arrangement, in which the guarantee concerned Norway alone, involved not only France and England, but also Germany and Russia. All four undertook to guarantee Norway's integrity and independence. There was remarkably little interest in for-

100

TENSION

AND L A T E R

HISTORY

eign affairs in Norway at this time, but among the informed, opinion was divided over this treaty, some wondering whether it had not made Norway's independence ambiguous by putting her under a kind of international tutelage. Apparently there were foreigners, too, who hesitated to accept her as a fully independent nation: for example, as in conjunction with the North Sea Convention of 1908." Under the changed conditions after the League of Nations had come into being, Norway herself moved to have the treaty lapse, which it did in 1 9 2 4 . POLITICAL DEVELOPMENTS AFTER T H E

SEPARATION

The World W a r rather naturally divides N o r w a y ' s history since the separation of 1 9 0 5 into three parts. In the pre-War years, attention, which for decades before 1 9 0 5 was centered on Union controversies, was turned almost entirely to domestic interests. The decade was marked by liberal social legislation: the Left Ministry of Gunnar Knudsen ( 1 9 0 8 - 1 0 ) ,

especially,

became memorable f o r its endeavor to establish public control over exploitative capitalism. This effort was embodied above all in a remarkable set of concession laws, championed by the Minister of Justice, Johan Castberg ( 1 8 6 2 - 1 9 2 6 ) , father of a future counselor at the Nobel Institute, 7 who styled himself a Worker Democrat. These laws, which attracted wide attention, severely restricted the opportunities of private capital, especially foreign capital, for exploiting the natural resources of mines, timber lands, and waterfalls. The World W a r years were dominated by the problem of maintaining neutrality. This was a matter to be dealt with largely in conjunction with the two other Scandinavian peoples, and there was cooperation on various levels, among the monarchs, among the foreign ministers and other Cabinet members, and β

Cf. E. Bull et al., Det norske folks Liv og Historie gjennem Tidene, Vol. X,

pp. 498-99. 7

C f . infra, p . 1 7 6 .

T E N S I O N AND L A T E R H I S T O R Y

101

among parliamentary delegations from each of the three countries. How fortunate it was that Norway and Sweden had separated peaceably in 1905, every one could now see; war, and defeat for one of the two peoples, would have nourished plans for revenge and would have made quite impossible a common policy of neutrality ten years later. In the post-War period, public energies in Norway, as elsewhere, were largely devoted to problems of readjustment, both social and economic. Fully convinced that it is the smaller states that relatively have most to gain from an ordered international society, Norway, together with Sweden and Denmark, gave generously of her energies to the activities of the League of Nations.8 In domestic politics the period produced new party groupings ready to shoulder Cabinet responsibility. The Peasant (or Farmer) Party enjoyed control under the Ministries of Kolstad and Hundseid ( 1 9 3 1 - 3 3 ) . After a few brief days of nominal Cabinet power in 1928, the Labor or Worker Party, heir in the main of the old Social Democratic Party, took over the reins of government under more favorable conditions with the formation of the Nygaardsvold Ministry ( 1 9 3 5 — ) . This party, of course, has traditionally been the party committed to the policy of peace in international affairs; appropriately enough, its present Minister of Foreign Affairs is no less an exponent of peace than Halvdan Koht. At this point we close our survey of the political background and turn to a more detailed exámination of the Storting's interest in the peace cause, particularly during the nineties. 8 For a brief survey of this loyalty see the writer's "The Scandinavian Peoples in the League of Nations," The American-Scandinavian Review, Vol. XXII, pp.

201-17.

Vili

THE STORTING SUPPORTS

VARIOUS

PEACE ENDEAVORS T H A T phase of the peace movement which sought to organize peace sentiment in the national parliaments—manifest in the first Inter-Parliamentary Conference in 1889 and taking definite form as the Inter-Parliamentary Union in 1892—was effective rather promptly in the Norwegian Storting. As early as 1890, its members formed an organization which became the Norwegian branch of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. Equivalent groups were not formed in the Swedish and Danish parliaments before 1892 and 1893 respectively.1 THE

INTER-PARLIAMENTARY IN T H E

UNION:

A BRANCH

FORMED

STORTING

Oddly enough, however, the initial impulse which led to the Storting organization came from the activities of the Swedish pacifist Arnoldson. Klas Pontus Arnoldson (1844-1916) began his career as a clerk in a railway office. In the eighties he took up newspaper work and became a publicist and agitator. There was a deep religious strain in him which responded readily to what he learned of freer currents in the Anglo-Saxon world, and he sought to promote a form of Unitarianism. He became interested also in republicanism and the ideals of a Nordens Fristatssamfund ("Free State Government of the North") for which Bajer was agitating. 2 His interest in the peace cause was awakened by the Dano-Prussian War of 1864 3 and in the 1 E. Wavrinsky, Den svenska Riksdageiis interparlamentariska holm, 1917), pp. 23-24; F. Bajer. Fredrik Bajeas Livserindringer, - Cf. supra, p. 19. 3 "Nobelprisvinderen," Ajtenposten, Dec. 11, 1906.

Grupp p. 485.

(Stock-

SUPPORT OF PEACE ENDEAVORS

103

eighties he pushed that cause with vigor—in the press, in the Riksdag, of which he was a member from 1 8 8 2 to 1 8 8 7 , and through the activities of the Swedish Peace and Arbitration Society, which he helped to form. He became enthusiastic over the possibilities of a policy of permanent neutrality, and, as in the case of Bajer, his faith in its efficacy turned out to be unshakable. When in 1 8 8 3 he first sought to commit the Riksdag to such a policy, he also sounded out liberal sentiment in Norway. 4 On the negative side, he strove through the long succession of crises between Norway and Sweden to exercise a calming influence, always seeking to dissuade his more fiery compatriots from hasty action, even under the provocation of the separation of Norway in 1905. In 1 9 0 8 he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Arnoldson did the friends of peace in Norway a good turn in the fall and winter of 1889-90, when he undertook an extensive lecture tour in that country. He spoke on various social and economic subjects and evoked no end of animated discussion. 5 But it was the peace cause in particular that he had come to plead, and he urged the circulation of a petition to the King asking that treaties providing for the use of arbitration be signed with other states. 6 Apparently he also attempted, though without success, to arrange a meeting of Swedish and Norwegian parliamentary members at Gothenburg. 7 In his wake, Amoldson left a stir of fresh interest in the peace cause, especially among Storting members. The most remarkable manifestation of this interest, an arbitration address drawn up in 1 8 9 0 , will be treated in the following chapter, but we must * Morgenbladet, May 2, 1883; Morgengryet, Vol. VIII, Jan. 4, 1890. In the Storting a party caucus of the Left passed a favorable resolution; cf. H. Koht, Freds-tanken i Noregs-sogo, p. 90. 5 Cf. T. J. Steffensen, Κ. P. Arnoldsons Foredrag seet fra et ikke-theologisk Standpunkt (Bergen, 1890). 8 "Svensk Tale i Norge," Morgengryet, Vol. VII, Dec. 21, 1889; Vol. VIII, Jan. 4, 1890. 7 N. J . Sflrensen, Fredsvennen K. P. Arnoldson (Christiania, 1897), p. 46.

104

S U P P O R T OF PEACE ENDEAVORS

note here another indication, namely, the definitive organization of the peace union in the Storting. If any one figure among those most active in its establishment is to be singled out, it may well be Ullmann, who became its first president. Viggo Ullmann (1848-1910) 8 had certain Danish antecedents on both his mother's and his father's sides of the family. In the latter case, the line reached back even to Vienna.9 It may therefore be said that he came rather naturally by his interest in Grundtvigianism and the folk high-school movement.10 After being connected with several such high-schools, he settled permanently at Seljord in Telemarken, remaining as principal there until 1902. He represented his district in the Storting continuously from 1885 to 1900, serving for two terms as its president. Ullmann was a leader of the aggressive wing of the Left, a faction which, especially in the first half of the nineties, pulled the whole party into ever more exposed positions in the controversy with Sweden. Together with H. J. Horst and one or two others he made up a sort of "general staff" of this faction, laying plans for ever new demands on Sweden and new assaults to be made upon the Union arrangement. This coterie was not unwilling to effect a complete separation, or even to set up a republican form of government for Norway. Ullmann was an effective agitator—he had won his party spurs on the brusque informal hustings of the early eighties.11 Yet some of the mannerisms of the pedagogue never left him, and he never quite escaped the feeling that he belonged to "the aristocracy of stump speakers." 12 8 A. M. S. Arctander, Skolemanden Viggo Ullmann (Kvitseid, 1912 [ 1 9 1 3 ] ) ; Jakob Naadland, Penneteikningar, etc. (Skien, 1923) ; Rasmus Stauri, "Viggo Ullmann," Den jrilyndte Ungdomen, Vol. Ill (1919), pp. 37-48; Lars Eskeland, "Viggo Ullmann," Norsk Aarbok, 1930, pp. 60-70. 8 Studentene fra 1907 (Oslo, 1932), p. 418. 10 Cf. his Breve under et Ophold i Danmark ved de danske Folkehfiiskoler Vinteren 1872-73 (Christiania, 1916). 11 Cf. supra, pp. 36-37. 12 Cf. Yngvar Nielsen, Under Oscar ITs Regjering; Yngvar Nielsen, Fra Johan Sverdrups Dage (Christiania, 1913), p. 45.

S U P P O R T OF PEACE ENDEAVORS

105

Ullmann had been caught up in the peace cause in the wave of interest which marked the later eighties, and we find him taking a part in the early attempts to get a peace society started in Norway. 13 When Stortingets Fredsforening ("The Storting's Peace Union") was organized in 1890, it chose him as its president, a position he held to the end of the decade. When the Storting set about to designate some representatives to protect its interest in certain negotiations over Nobel's will, it placed Ullmann on this committee ; it also made him an alternate member of its first regular Nobel Committee (1897-1900). M E M B E R S H I P IN T H E

UNION

No official records of the first decade of the history of Stortingets Fredsforening are extant. 14 Its statutes, as they were printed much later, 15 consisted of five rather simple articles. Shortly after each newly elected Storting met, older members of its Fredsforening were to elect new officers for the coming term, that is, for the three-year Storting period. An executive committee of five members was to be chosen, and this group in turn was to select its own chairman and secretary. Those representatives were to be considered members who signified their desire to belong, though former Storting members and former Cabinet ministers might also be admitted. It appears, however, that later, at any rate, such extraneous and special memberships required approval by the executive council of the international body.18 In the early days, members of the Left, as is natural, were more enthusiastic about joining than were members of the Right." 13

Cf. supra, pp. 50-51. Stortingets Fredsforening, Forhandlingsprotocol, entry of July 22, 1915; from 1901 on a somewhat consistent record is available, thanks to the pains taken by the group's present secretary, P. A. Wessel-Berg (1881—), who has served in that capacity since 1913. 15 Stortings Forhandlinger, 1910, V, dokument nr. 2, p. 19. 16 Such approval was sought, for instance, in the case of Bernhard Hanseen and J. L. Mowinckel. Stortingets Fredsforening, Forhandlingsprotocol, entries of March 10, 1916, and August 19, 1919. " Cf. Morgengryet, Vol. IX, July 7, 1891. 14

106

SUPPORT

OF PEACE

ENDEAVORS

Records of a later date make it appear that at least half a hundred, and sometimes well over a hundred, members enrolled. 18 There is, however, something ambiguous about this matter of membership. It would seem that in the early period all members of the Storting belonged to the Union. Perhaps there was a distinction between the actual and the nominal membership, the latter including also those who, quite in sympathy with the aims and purposes of the Union, had failed formally to place their names upon the roll. Or perhaps, without taking part in the deliberations of the local branch, some considered themselves individual members of the international organization. At any rate, in the pre-War decade, the Secretary-General of the InterParliamentary Union, Chr. L. Lange, spoke of the fact that while membership in the Union was small in many countries, in Norway—the only case—all the members of the Storting, nominally at least, were members of the Union. 19 The same assertion was made in 1 9 1 2 on the floor of the Storting. 20 The only positive defection the Norwegian local suffered was that of the Socialists. They withdrew in 1 9 1 2 , and their absence lasted until well into the War period; in 1 9 1 6 efforts to induce them to return were still unavailing. 21 But the overwhelming events abroad in 191719 submerged many earlier differences. In 1920, once more, L0vland was assuming that all Storting members belonged to the Inter-Parliamentary branch. 22 1 8 Stortingets Fredsforening, Forhandlingsprotocol, entries of Feb. 25, 1910; July 22, 1915; March 10, 1916. The official report of the 1903 conference lists 90 Norwegian members. Cf. Inter-Parliamentary Union, Compte rendu, de la XI' Conférence [Vienne, 1903], p. 217. 1 9 Chr. L. Lange, " F r e d , " Dagbladet, Dec. 10, 1909; Chr. L. Lange, " T h e Inter-Parliamentary Union," Maryland Quarterly, No. 11, August, 1912, p. 6. 20 Stortings Forhandlinger, 1912, VII, 2019. 2 1 Stortingets Fredsforening, Forhandlingsprotocol, entries of May 25 and July 24, 1916. 2 2 J . L0vland, "Christian Lous Lange," Folkefred, Vol. IV, p. 2.

S U P P O R T OF P E A C E E N D E A V O R S PEACE ENDEAVORS SUPPORTED

107

FINANCIALLY

One group in particular was responsible for bringing the name of the Storting into close association with the cause of peace during the nineties, namely, the aggressive wing of the Left—more or less the same group which pressed for direct action against Sweden. Carrying with it the rest of the party, and hence a majority of the Storting, this faction induced the Norwegian parliament to take a number of significant steps in support of the endeavors to promote international peace. Above all, the Storting's reputation was extended, not least in foreign circles, by its readiness to appropriate public moneys for peace endeavors. We may first consider the generous support which it gave its members who went abroad to represent Stortingets Fredsforening at the Inter-Parliamentary conferences. Strictly speaking, the Inter-Parliamentary Union was a private organization, and those who represented their colleagues at its conferences were away on private business. As such they had no claim, in point of law, to support from the public treasury. But the Storting rather generously advanced sums to help cover the traveling expenses of its delegates who attended the Inter-Parliamentary Conferences. The number of delegates was invariably three, and sums of 1,200, 3,000, and 2,400 kroner were voted in 1890, 1891, and 1892, respectively, to enable delegates to attend the Conferences in London, Rome, and Berne. As the years went on, sums on this order became the established rule. The more zealous advocates were anxious to have Norway represented "more fully" at The Hague meeting in 1897—the terms of Nobel's will had but recently become known—and recommended that the delegation be doubled in size, but a membership of only three was authorized as usual. The Inter-Parliamentary group gained a point, however, when the Storting appropriated 300 kroner to provide its chairman

108

S U P P O R T OF P E A C E

ENDEAVORS

with an office and with secretarial help. 23 Once granted, this item too became a regular annual charge. The appropriations for the expenses of the Inter-Parliamentary delegates were not voted without some protest. Most of the objections came from the Right, though the party by no means voted en bloc on the matter. In fact, the party leader, Em il Stang, observed that in Norway public moneys had to be appropriated for many things which, if economic conditions had permitted, might have been left to private support. 24 Others argued, however, that these grants would become precedents (as in fact they d i d ) , or that it was a question whether sums should be given f o r j o u r n e y s to be taken outside the r e g u l a r Storting ses-

sions, or that private ventures ought not thus be supported with public moneys. 25 But the eager supporters of Stortingets Fredsforening were prepared on their side to meet all such arguments. Why shouldn't the Storting spend a few hundred kroner on peace efforts, it was asked, when it spent hundreds of thousands, even millions, on other debatable matters—on defense and armaments, for instance, or on Nansen's adventurous polar expedition in the " F r a m " ? Besides, Norway's action attracted flattering attention abroad. Ullmann could point out in 1891 that if the Storting again made appropriations for the Norwegian delegates to the coming Conference at Rome, the Italian Chamber of Deputies was prepared to recommend similar action to other assemblies. After all, observed Sivert Nielsen from the president's chair, it was in the advancement of pacificatory and civilizing causes that the small states had a chance to come into their own. In this connection, he held, Norway would do well to be generous. Generous the Storting continued to be, urged on by the more zealous members of its Fredsforening. In 1895, for instance, it 23 Stortings Forhandlinger, 1897, VII, 1700. 2* Ibid., 1892, VII, 1426. =5/6iá., 1890, VI a, Indst. S nr. 185, pp. 564-65; VII, 1870-74; 1891, VII, 12981304; 1892, VII, 1424-27.

S U P P O R T OF PEACE E N D E A V O R S

109

chose to appropriate 2,000 kroner for the Inter-Parliamentary Union's Bureau at Berne, established in 1892. Presumably this was a grant made once and for all,28 but in 1898 the budget included a new item of 500 kroner which was approved and which turned out to be the first of a series of annual appropriations later increased to larger sums. Again some of the conservatives obstinately opposed the grants. 0 . A. Liitzow Holm (1853-?), a pastor who also had some military experience, constituted himself a sort of watchdog of the treasury in respect of proposed grants for peace work, reminding his colleagues repeatedly that elsewhere in Europe support for the Berne Bureau came from private sources, not from the public treasury.27 The Storting, meanwhile, had come to the aid of another needy peace organization, namely, the International Peace Bureau which had been set up at Berne in 1892. At its foundation, only Switzerland had given it any public aid (a natural move, considering the Bureau's location). A request from Norway's Peace Union in 1896, signed by Bernhard Hanssen, asked that an appropriation of 500 kroner be made available for the use of the Bureau. This request was refused, as was also a similar individual request presented by H. J. Horst.28 In 1897, however, the Storting chose to support the Peace Bureau with a 500 kroner appropriation, receipt of which the Bureau heartily acknowledged,29 and thereafter a similar item was voted annually. The sums voted in these and other appropriations were in fact moderate enough, but we take their true measure only when we see them in contrast with the less flattering responses of other national parliaments. Denmark, for instance, did not begin to defray the expenses of Rigsdag delegates to the Inter-Parliamentary Conferences until 1899, and Sweden began to advance 2« Ibid., 1895, VI a, Indst. S nr. 287; VII, 2042-49. ^ Ibid., 1898, VII, 939-43; 1898-99, VI, Indst. S nr. 113, pp. 3024. 28 Ibid., 1896, V, dokumerU nr. 79; VII, 1422-31. =o Ibid., 1897, VI, Indst. S nr. 120, p. 302; VII, 799, 1350.

110

S U P P O R T OF P E A C E

ENDEAVORS

public money f o r peace work only at about the same time. 30 For half a generation the only national assembly to vote an official subvention f o r the Inter-Parliamentary Bureau was the Norwegian Storting. Only after Lord Weardale had announced at the Berlin Conference in 1 9 0 8 that Britain would grant £300 f o r 1 9 0 9 , was the example followed by other states.31 JOHN

LUND

Norway's flattering record in support of international peace endeavors naturally gained f o r her no little favorable publicity abroad, and when her delegates returned from the Inter-Parliamcntary Conferences they could invariably report that much favorable attention was given to Norway. They told of the enthusiastic applause with which the Conference delegates greeted the mention of Norway's name and of the flattering references to various things her Storting had done, not least in supporting her delegates financially.32 Among the delegates who attended the Inter-Parliamentary gatherings none was so assiduous in reporting the foreign flattery shown to Norway as John Lund. John Theodore Lund ( 1 8 4 2 - 1 9 1 3 ) was born in Bergen and turned to business as a career, ultimately becoming interested in a steamship line to England. He represented his native city in the Storting in 1 8 8 3 8 5 and again f r o m 1 8 9 2 to 1 9 0 0 , being chosen Speaker of the Lagting during the later years. Lund was an ardent patriot, ever anxious to put on display (especially at dinners and public functions) the sterling Norwegian virtues as he envisaged them. Fond of patriotic boasting 3 0 F. Bajer, Fredrik Bajer's Livserindringer, p. 4 8 5 ; C. Sundblad, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 2 1 . 31 The Inter-Parliamentary Union, Its Work and Its Organization (Geneva, 1 9 2 1 ) , p. 1 7 ; Clir. L. Lange, "The Inter-Parliamentary Union," International Conciliation, No. 65, A p r i l , 1 9 1 3 , pp. 3-14, also Maryland Quarterly, No. 1 1 , August, 1 9 1 2 , pp. 3-10. ss Stortings Forhandlinger, 1 8 9 1 , VII, 1121-22, 1 2 9 9 ; 1895, VII, 2 0 4 7 ; 1898, VII, 9 4 1 .

SUPPORT OF PEACE ENDEAVORS

111

(he was at times the butt of the comic weeklies)" and enjoying a certain gift for composing occasional verse, Lund became something of a professional greeter. It was not without reason that he invariably had charge of the 17th of May program in Bergen. He wrote a biography of his illustrious fellow townsman, Ole Bull, and for the delegates expected at the InterParliamentary Conference in Christiania in 1899, he prepared a short history of Norway/ 1 As a member of the aggressive Left, Lund supported with gusto appropriations to be used for the strengthening of Norway's defenses. 35 But at the same time he was one of the most zealous members of Stortingets Fredsforening, making almost a profession of attending the Inter-Parliamentary Conferences. He also attended the Thirteenth Universal Peace Congress at Boston in 1904. At these Conferences he described the splendid things Norway and the Storting were doing for the cause of peace 36 (after Nobel's donation became known he had an extra talking point), and conversely, on his return home, he had much to report on the inspiring (and chatty) meetings the delegates had had at the Inter-Parliamentary Conferences. It seemed natural enough that Lund should be elected a member of the first Nobel Committee. While he nearly failed of reëlection at the end of the first term in 1903, he continued to serve until his death in 1913. THE 1 8 9 9 CONFERENCE: A TRIBUTE TO NORWAY

Though their enthusiasm sometimes helped to embroider the facts, the Norwegian delegates to the Inter-Parliamentary Conferences reported correctly, in the main. There actually was 33 Tyrihans, June 18, 1897, pp. [1931-94; Aug. 11, 1899; Vikingen, Aug. 19, 1899. 34 Histoire de Norvège ; traduite d'après la traduction allemande par Gaston Moch (Christiania, 1899). ss Cf. Social-Demokraten, April 27, 1897; Norske IiUeUigenssedler, Sept. 21, 1908. 38 In addition to preceding references see Ajtenposten, July 28, 1906.

112

S U P P O R T OF PEACE E N D E A V O R S

admiration abroad for the things the Storting and its Fredsforen· ing were doing. In order to manifest its appreciation of what was being done, the Inter-Parliamentary Union planned to hold its fifth Conference, in 1893, at Christiania. It had previously met at Paris, London, Rome, and Beme; the latter was just being made the seat of the Bureau. The plans for 1893 were therefore an unmistakable tribute to the Storting, for there were several capitals that might feel they could play host to the Inter-Parliamentary delegates before Christiania had a claim to be considered. The plans for 1893 had to be cancelled, however, because the acrimonious controversy with Sweden over the consular issue hardly provided the proper atmosphere for a peace congress. But the matter was taken up some years later, when plans to convene at Lisbon miscarried, and at the close of the decade an invitation to meet in Christiania was eagerly seized upon. To some, the Norwegian capital possibly seemed a bit distant, but this, said the head of the Austrian delegation, must not deter the other delegates. It was their duty to pay this compliment to the Norwegians and thus show their appreciation of the assiduity with which, from the very beginning, the Storting had supported the endeavors of the Inter-Parliamentary Union.37 At Christiania in 1899 the delegates had for the first time the pleasure of being greeted by a responsible statesman in power, when Prime Minister Steen of the Left officially welcomed them in the name of his country. At this meeting, too, they took steps to consolidate their organization by creating an Inter-Parliamentary Council composed of two members from each national group. The Council was to plan the agenda of each Conference and to prepare studies to be made by special committees.38 37

Stortings Forhandlinger, 1898-99, V, dokument nr. 15. Inter-Parliamentary Union, Compte rendu, de la IX' Christiania (Berne, 1900), pp. 60-65. 38

Conférence

tenue

à

SUPPORT

OF PEACE ENDEAVORS HANS J A K O B

113

HORST

The Norwegian branch of the Inter-Parliamentary Union entered upon the second decade of its history minus the guidance of its first president, Ullmann, who was no longer a member of the Storting. Nevertheless, in January, 1 9 0 1 , steps were taken to organize for the new session. With all friends of peace in Norway, members of the Union could look forward to the end of the year with a special sense of anticipation, for there was a good prospect that the first Peace Prize would be awarded the following December. Bernhard Hanssen was temporarily made secretary, and H. J . Horst was chosen president. In March these temporary appointments were confirmed by a new executive committee. At this time, it seems, by-laws were adopted for the Union. 39 The person selected to replace Ullmann as chairman was to serve in that position for fifteen years. Hans Jakob Horst ( 18481 9 3 1 ) 4 0 was born in the northernmost part of the country, at Hammerfest, and it was the northern constituency of Troms0 and Bod0 that he represented in the Storting from 1 8 8 9 to 1 9 0 3 and again in 1906-9. He served as Speaker both in the Odelsting and the Lagting. By occupation he was a teacher and school superintendent, and in the early nineties he presided over an important educational commission which reported on future policies regarding the Norwegian secondary schools. Horst belonged to that aggressive wing of the Left—with Ullmann, he led its "general staff"—which in the nineties was constantly on the offensive against Sweden. Significantly enough, it was Horst who in 1 8 9 4 moved the resolution omitting Norway's share of the joint expenses of the legation at Vienna. 41 3 9 Stortingets Fredsforening, Forhandlingsprotocoi, entries for Jan. 24, Feb. 7, and March 4, 1901. 40 Dagbladet, Nov. 7, 1928, p. 4; March 17, 1931, p. 10; Aftenposten, March 18, 1931; Tidens Tegn, March 18, 1931. 4 1 Cf. supra, p. 92.

114

S U P P O R T OF PEACE

ENDEAVORS

With colleagues of like mind, Horst saw the supreme need of maintaining and strengthening the national defenses, if Norway's demands on Sweden were to be realized. "For the sake of our independence," he announced himself a friend of defense—"war-crazy, if you will." 42 As a peace worker, Horst applied his energies particularly to the international aspects of the movement. Like Lund, he was consistently a delegate at the Inter-Parliamentary Conferences. In 1899 he became a member of the Inter-Parliamentary Union's executive committee. From 1906 to 1929 he was enrolled on the panel of arbitrators of the Court of International Arbitration at The H a g u e , a n d f r o m 1 9 1 1 he w a s a member of

the Carnegie Endowment's Advisory Council in Europe. In 1916 he sat on a Commission of Investigation and Conciliation acting on the basis of an arbitration treaty between China and the United States. Horst became a member of the Storting's Nobel Committee in 1901 and served on it continuously until his death in 1931. In 1937, his was still the longest period of service on the Committee. During the period of Horst's chairmanship of the Norwegian branch of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the group sponsored several major peace moves. In 1902 it took the initiative in bringing before the Storting the question of Norway's permanent neutrality; interestingly enough, the important committee appointed to consider this matter was presided over by Horst. In 1911, likewise, Stortingets Fredsforening succeeded in bringing the Storting to consider the question of so phrasing arbitration treaties signed with other states as to have them cover all disputes without exception. The World War, naturally, made a mockery for a time of all peace and Inter-Parliamentary activity. Inappropriate as the occasion seemed for any peace-union jubilee speeches, however, some fifty-five members of Stortingets Fredsforening gathered 42

Fred,

pr0venummer,

Dec. 7, 1898, p. 6.

SUPPORT OF PEACE ENDEAVORS

115

on July 22, 1915, to commemorate briefly the twenty-fifth anniversary of its first participation in Inter-Parliamentary work.43 At the next Storting session Horst declined to serve any longer as chairman, and there was chosen to fill his place a new leader of the Left, Mowinckel of Bergen, 44 who was to display in time a genuine and sustained interest in the cause of peace. 45 A REGIONAL D E V E L O P M E N T :

T H E SCANDINAVIAN

INTERPARLIAMENTARY

UNION

Stortingets Fredsforening gave a new turn to its international affiliations in 1907, when it joined with similar groups in Sweden and in Denmark to form the Scandinavian Inter-Parliamentary Union.46 The formation of this regional unit, on the very morrow of Norway's unceremonious separation from Sweden, was a cause for undisguised rejoicing among friends of peace in the North. As a matter of fact, the idea of such regional collaboration was not new, but had been broached a number of times in the preceding twenty-five years, first, perhaps, by Fredrik Bajer. In some quarters, no doubt, it had been supported precisely because there was fear that the constant bickerings over the Swedish-Norwegian Union might lead to bloodshed. During the general Conference in Christiania in 1899, the Norwegian group had asked representatives from the other two Northern parliaments to meet separately with it,47 and similar concurrent gatherings of members from the three legislatures were held at succeeding Conferences of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. The Scandinavian Union grew directly out of the initiative taken by representatives of each of the three Northern parliaments—those from Norway were Bernhard Hanssen, J . C. Stortingets Fredsforening, Forhandlingsprotocol, entry of July 22, 1915. Ibid., entry of March 8, 1916. 4 5 Cf. infra, pp. 221-22. 4 6 There is a brief survey of the Union by P. A. Wessel-Berg in Stortings Forhandlinger, 1921, VI a, ii, Indst. S nr. 63, Bilag, pp. 4-6. 4 7 Cf. E. Wavrinsky, op. cit., pp. 4648, 51-52. 43 44

116

S U P P O R T OF P E A C E

ENDEAVORS

Brandt, and Carl Stousland—who met in Copenhagen in July, 1906. These invited the parliamentary groups of each of the three countries to send representatives to a gathering of Scandinavian parliamentarians at Copenhagen. In response to this call, a gathering in September, 1907, organized the Scandinavian Inter-Parliamentary Union. The by-laws adopted 48 made clear that the intention was both to promote the general aims of the international parent organization and to discuss problems of particular significance for the three Northern kingdoms. A second meeting was not held before 1910, but thereafter meetings were held annually in rotation at the three capitals, Christiania being host f o r the first time in 1 9 1 1 . During the World

War these conferences continued to be an important means of facilitating inter-Scandinavian cooperation in the supremely important task of preserving Scandinavian neutrality. After the War, the establishment of the League of Nations and the general endeavor to construct a better ordered international society naturally left the Inter-Parliamentary Union with a seemingly modest rôle. In a sense, peace is now the official policy of all governments in the League—or at any rate, of all but the larger powers—and the initiative in matters of peace comes as readily from the executive branches as from the parliamentary assemblies. This is true of Norway as well, and we have no occasion here to pursue further the history of the Norwegian branch of the Union. 18

Stortings

Forhandlinger,

1910, V, dokument

nr. 2, pp. 20-21.

IX

PEACE A N D U N I O N I S T

POLITICS

W E HAVE deferred our discussion of the Storting's most arresting step in the interest of peace in order to treat it in a context that will make clear its place in the larger setting of Unionist affairs. That step was the adoption in 1890 of an arbitration address, whereby the Storting became the first national assembly to go on record as having a majority favorable to the settlement of international disputes by the orderly procedure of arbitration. THE

ARBITRATION

ADDRESS O F

1890

The initial impulse came from Arnoldson's tour in the winter of 1889-90, 11 and in a valid sense he can be referred to as the "father" of the address,2 of which news reached him at Bergen, apparently while he was still on tour.8 It will be recalled that he was seeking to arouse interest in a petition to the King calling for adoption of the principle of arbitration. After one of the lectures in the town of Skien, in the southern part of the country, a local Storting representative engaged him in conversation and seized upon the idea that here was a matter on which the Storting ought to act. That representative was Paul Koht, father of the same Halvdan Koht whose career we have considered above. 4 Paul Steenstrup Koht (1844-92) 5 was born at Bod0 in the northern part of the country, but divided his active career between Troms0 in the north and Skien in the south. As a teacher, 1

Cf. supra, pp. 103-4. "Om Nobels Testamente," Det norske Fredsblad, Vol. IV, April 8, 1897. 3 N. J. S0rensen, Fredsvennen K. P. Arnoldson, p. 46. 4 Supra, pp. 63-68. 5 Studenterne fra 1861 (Christiania, 1911); Vörden (Skien), Aug. 27, 1892. 2

118

PEACE AND UNIONIST

POLITICS

he dabbled in local politics, and engaged in local journalism. Elected to the Storting in 1889, as representative from Skien, he had just begun a second term when he was overtaken by an untimely death. He was a member of the Left, sharing its assertively national point of view on questions pertaining to the Union, and displaying in some of his views a sympathy for the workers and a solicitude for the rights of dissenters and teetotalers. After the contact with Arnoldson, Koht, early in February, 1890, brought up the matter of an arbitration address in a party caucus of the Left (Stortingets Venstreforening), where he m o v e d that s u c h a n a d d r e s s s h o u l d b e o f f e r e d on the floor o f

the Storting. 8 The motion was adopted, and a committee was authorized to prepare the draft of such an address. The draft produced by this committee and adopted by the caucus—of which there is a manuscript copy, dated February 21, 1890, in the archives of the Storting's Inter-Parliamentary group 7 — was in all essentials based upon Arnoldson's ideas. As introduced in the Storting, the petition bore the names of ten sponsors: V. Ullmann, Paul Koht, V. A. Wexelsen, K . Moursund, W. Konow, Sigurd Blekastad, N. Skaar, Peder Rinde, Andreas Lavik, and Niels Melhus, all members of the Left. The petition was worded as follows: To the K i n g ! Approaching with tokens of deepest respect, the Storting requests Your Majesty to use the power conferred on Your Majesty in paragraph twenty-six of the constitution to try to arrange with foreign powers treaties to decide by means of arbitration disputes which may arise between Norway and these powers. The idea of arbitration as applied to the relations between peoples is beginning to win favor. In more than fifty instances during our century, war has been averted when the disputing parties have agreed to refer the matter to the award of arbitrators, and we know of no case β

Posten ( S k i e n ) , J a n . 6, 1891. Stortingets Fredsforening, Arkivet 1890-1906. It bears a notation which should indicate that this copy w a s penned by S . Arctander. 7

PEACE

AND

UNIONIST

POLITICS

119

of either party thereafter ever disavowing the agreement or refusing to obey the judgment. Further development along this line will be [registered in the form of] permanent treaties of arbitration for disputes that may arise. Such a thought is by no means strange to civilized Europe. Thus, in Paris last year, on the 29th and 30th of June there was founded a Union of members of practically all of Europe's legislative assemblies, with the expressed aim of rendering mutual support to one another in efforts to put this program into effect. The Storting is convinced that this idea has the support of an overwhelming proportion of our people. Just as law and justice have long ago replaced fist-law in disputes between man and man, so the idea of settling disputes among peoples and nations is making its way with irresistible strength. More and more, war appears to the general consciousness as a vestige of prehistoric barbarism and a curse to the human race. This conviction has penetrated to all layers of the population, especially among us who have had the good fortune to live unmolested in peace for three-quarters of a century. Fully confident that what the Storting is here requesting of Your Majesty will be of unconditional benefit to our people, the Storting recommends that Your Majesty take steps necessary [to make the request effective]. The petition was the subject of a long and serious debate in the Storting on the 5th of March. 8 The fight in its favor was led by Ullmann, who in one of his speeches deprecated the tendency to look upon a treaty merely as "a scrap of paper." Prime Minister Emil Stang suggested proceeding slowly in this matter, pointing to what had already been done. But other members of the Right were more positive. An interesting (and strikingly fragile) argument was advanced by a representative named Michelet, who contended that if the King were to approach other states as proposed, these might be taken by surprise and be led to ask whether the Swedish-Norwegian King was contemplating some evil project, which if not solved amicably might lead to conflict. Else why was he anxious to push the matter of arbitration? The address was passed by a vote of 8 9 to 24. Though a « Stortings Forhandlinger,

1890, VII, 219-36.

120

P E A C E AND U N I O N I S T

POLITICS

number of members of the Right finally voted with the Left in favor of it, the 2 4 negative votes were uniformly from the Right—as 0yen's medium put it, from those holding "fat offices," among them several pastors and one bishop." T H E ADDRESS IN T H E HANDS OF SWEDISH

AUTHORITIES

The arbitration address had passed! In no unmistakable terms, a national assembly had unequivocally declared in favor of the arbitral procedure as a practical policy. The next question was, What would come of it? The petition had now to pass into the hands of Swedish authorities. How would they dispose o f it? T h e m a t t e r was o u t w a r d l y quicscent d u r i n g the r e m a i n d e r

of Stang's conservative ministry, but Steen's new ministry of the Left, in a declaration of policy on April 4, 1891, espoused the principles of the arbitration address as its own. The new government made inquiries regarding its progress in the hands of authorities at Stockholm, and all correspondence concerning the matter was ordered before the Storting.10 The Stang Ministry had been inclined to think that arbitration was a matter to be launched jointly by Sweden and Norway, not by Norway alone. In June, 1890, nevertheless, it had forwarded the Storting's address to the Swedish Foreign Minister and had asked for his opinion on the matter. It was this Minister's function to present such addresses to the King. But he in the meantime had sounded out the Swedish-Norwegian diplomatic representatives in various European and American capitals. Nearly all the ministers approached were of the opinion that no government was ready to sign a general arbitration convention. In November, 1890, the Foreign Minister had reported this consensus of opinion to the Norwegian Department of the Interior, there being then no separate Norwegian Department of Foreign Affairs. He added that he was willing to apply arbitra9

Morgengryet, Vol. VIII, March 8, 1890. Stortings Forhandlinger, 1891, V, dokument nr. 96; 1892, II b, St. Prop. nr. 67.

10

P E A C E AND UNIONIST POLITICS

121

tion as often as possible, but that he thought Norway and Sweden should enter no general arbitration treaty, since this would control unforeseen cases in the future. It was particularly important for the smaller states, he noted, to have their treaties couched in a very specific phraseology, so that clauses might not later be stretched to cover questions whose scope it was difficult to determine beforehand. The Stang Ministry had made no further progress in the matter when it was replaced in 1891. The Storting debate of June 15, 1891, on the correspondence of the Swedish Foreign Minister, was long drawn-out. Zealous members of the Left were caustic in their reflections upon the procedures that had marked the progress of the petition. 11 The Storting had addressed it to the King; it was to him the Storting wanted its inquiry to go, said Horst. There was a well-established procedure governing the dispatch of addresses to the King; Arctander could recall no earlier occasion on which an address had been diverted along such avenues as this one. Was it not queer that a proposal supported by such a large majority of the Norwegian Storting should be "thwarted" by an official who was really a "Swedish" Minister? There would be no hesitancy about moving a lack of confidence in him, said Ullmann, if he were a person responsible to the Storting. And we can well understand that it did not sweeten the tempers of the zealots to learn that an opportunity to take a stand on the arbitration principle—the United States had recently directed an inquiry on the matter to various European capitals—had been refused, in January, 1891, by a "Ministerial" Cabinet meeting acting in the name of both Sweden and Norway. Since the new Steen Ministry (1891-93) was determined to push the matter, the Foreign Minister had to try again. In a "Ministerial" Cabinet of March 10, 1892—these "Ministerial" Cabinets, it will be recalled, 12 consisted at the time of one Norwegian and three Swedish ministers—Blehr, the Norwegian 11 Ibid.,

1891, VII, 1118-33.

12 Cf. supra,

pp. 88-90.

122

P E A C E AND U N I O N I S T

POLITICS

member, objected when the issue was brought up. He maintained that this was a matter to be classed as strictly Norwegian and hence not properly to be discussed in the present meeting. T h e K i n g chose to follow Swedish rather than Norwegian counsel. When B l e h r wanted to authorize the Foreign Minister to see what arbitration treaties could be arranged between

Norway

and other countries, the three Swedish advisers demurred. Only one small gain was registered, in the form of a resolution providing that in connection with future treaties the Foreign Minister should on each occasion explore the possibilities of having an arbitration agreement appended. 1 3 The Storting committee which considered this whole matter proposed to have the Storting declare the original arbitration address an exclusively Norwegian matter and wanted to authorize the government of the day to m a k e what progress it could. But in the summer of 1 8 9 3 the Steen government was replaced by Stang's second Ministry. With the Right nominally in control again, the Left, in opposition, intensified the deadlock over the consular issue. S o the arbitration question had to wait f o r a more favorable opportunity. 1 4 ARBITRATION

AND PERMANENT

NEUTRALITY

T h a t more favorable moment seemed to have arrived in 1 8 9 7 . E a r l y in J a n u a r y , Great Britain and the United States signed a treaty—which the United States Senate, by the way, later failed to r a t i f y — p r o v i d i n g for the arbitration of future disputes between the two peoples. T h i s move gave the arbitration cause new momentum among the parliamentary groups. Nobel's will, whose terms had become known shortly after New Y e a r ' s , may well have reminded some people of the Storting's e a r l i e r initiative in this matter. On F e b r u a r y 2 5 , ten leaders of the Left, among them Steen, Stortings Forhandlinger, 1892, II b, St. Prop. nr. 67. "Ibid., 1893, VI, Indst. S nr. 23; VII, 2225; 1894, VII, 690-91. 13

P E A C E AND UNIONIST POLITICS

123

Horst, Lund, L0vland, and Ullmann, called the attention of the Storting to the fact that the outlook for arbitration treaties was now more favorable than it had been.15 They proposed that a committee be appointed to make a fresh survey of the whole arbitration question. Such a committee made a report on May 29 and recommended that the Storting adopt a new arbitration address, which it did on June 16.1β Like its predecessor of 1890, this document of 1897 was addressed to the King. It pointed out that arbitration had won increased approval in the intervening seven years, and it cited especially the example of the recent Anglo-American treaty. There were reasons, it went on, why Norway should proceed in this matter. Just as the Norwegian people would sacrifice everything to maintain their independence, so they were determined in no way to violate the independence of others or to interfere in their affairs. Because she was less exposed to foreign conflicts on account of her geographical position, arbitration treaties could, in Norway's case, more readily be arranged. Convinced that such agreements would promote the country's welfare, the Storting importuned His Majesty to take the necessary steps to promote the adoption of such treaties. The new address was presented to the King in September, 1898 (a second Steen Ministry had replaced the Hagerup coalition government in February of this year), with the request that the King authorize the Foreign Minister to negotiate permanent arbitration treaties. Once more the Storting's initiative came to naught, though this time the blame could not so readily be laid on Swedish agencies. It was an unexpected step by one of the Great Powers which left the Storting's address unimplemented. In August, 1898, a Peace Conference at The Hague was summoned by Nicholas II, Czar of all the Russias. By October 8, the Steen ™lbid., 1897, V, dokument nr. 38. ™ Ibid., 1897, VI a, Indst. S nr. 28, p. 7; VII, 1163-72.

124

P E A C E AND U N I O N I S T

POLITICS

Ministry had laid before the King an exposition of the objectives for which it thought the Swedish and Norwegian delegates ought to work at this coming Conference. 17 Included was the consideration of arbitration treaties. The matter was considered on February 15, 1 8 9 9 , in a "Ministerial" Cabinet meeting presided over by the Crown Prince, later King Gustav V—not, as the Norwegians would have preferred, in a Swedish-Norwegian Cabinet, meeting to consider joint affairs. Here, somewhat lamely, it was decided not to act before seeing what the Conference at The Hague would do in the matter of arbitration. In addition to the arbitration question, the idea of declaring the Northern states permanently neutral was much to the fore at the turn of the century. The Norwegian government wanted the Swedish-Norwegian delegates at The Hague gathering to press also for recognition of the Scandinavian peninsula's permanent neutrality. At the same "Ministerial" Cabinet meeting of February 15, 1 8 9 9 , the Norwegian Minister spoke in favor of raising the neutrality question at the Conference, but the Foreign Minister, Count Douglas, thought that no good purpose would be served thereby. 18 A few years later the Storting pursued further its interest in neutrality, when it authorized an unusually well-staffed committee to make an exhaustive study of the neutrality question. This body tendered a full report in 1902. The Storting chose to approve the suggestions that were made and adopted a resolution requesting the government to take up for consideration the proposal of a permanent neutrality for Sweden and Norway, in a form that would guarantee and preserve the freedom and independence of the two peoples. This was, however, an approval only in principle, for the authorities were enjoined to take such steps only as soon as the time seemed opportune. 18 "Ibid., 1899-1900, II, St. Prop. nr. 73, pp. 14-15, reprinted in Koht, tanken i Noregs-sogo, pp. 124-25. ι» Stortings Forhandlinger, 1899-1900, II, St. Prop. nr. 73, pp. 18-23. 19 Ibid., 1901-2, V, dokument nr. 51; cf. VI a, Indst. S nr. 43, p. 7.

Freds-

P E A C E AND UNIONIST POLITICS

125

This qualification serves to call attention to the fact that the Storting's stand on arbitration rested on a basis somewhat different from its position on the issue of neutrality. In the matter of neutrality, neither partner in the Swedish-Norwegian Union could move faster than the other was willing to go: according to the Act of Union, defense was a joint matter. And on the question of neutrality the Swedish Riksdag,—not to speak of the Swedish government, in 1894, 1899, and again in 1902—took a stand unmistakably opposed to any such regional undertaking as that envisaged by those who would neutralize the Scandinavian peninsula. Alone, Norway could therefore do little on this front. With regard to arbitration, however, the situation was different. Here one country might with much better grace proceed by itself. Arrangements to settle disputes by arbitration involved no such vital threat as did the neutrality idea to the obligations of joint defense. Unhampered, therefore, by obligations to Sweden, the Storting had twice pressed the matter of arbitration through the regular diplomatic channels. Efforts thus to promote an independent policy of peace were by no means confined to these preliminary endeavors. In addition, Norway undertook, in spite of the Foreign Minister's misgivings about her legal right to sign such agreements separately, to enter several treaties of her own. These provided for the use of arbitration. Between 1892 and 1895 four such treaties were signed—with Spain, Switzerland, Portugal, and Belgium. True, they were commercial and not political treaties, but they did translate the arbitration principle into practice. T H E LACK

OF A SEPARATE

FOREIGN

MINISTER

It should be clear from what has been said in this chapter and those preceding that the Storting's interest in the peace cause was a genuine interest, an interest partly sustained by that general faith in progress and enlightenment which characterized the close of the century. Our understanding of the Storting's general

126

PEACE AND UNIONIST

POLITICS

position would remain incomplete, however, if we did not consider also the matter of Unionist politics. For to a certain extent it was the unsatisfactory relations with Sweden which conditioned—even promoted—the Storting's aggressive interest in the peace cause. The citizens of a national state which has but recently won its independence and is as yet none too firmly established are apt to be very sensitive about its relations with foreign powers. Full and complete control of foreign policy is the supreme symbol of a nation's independence, directly and universally recognized. Conversely, any abridgment of control over foreign affairs—no matter how unimportant—is apt to he accepted hy others as an evidence of some defect or shortcoming in the status of nationhood. The nationals involved are therefore apt to become hypersensitive on this point. On the one hand, they may assert that their national state is, at bottom, f u l l y sovereign in matters of foreign policy, whatever the particular arrangements prevailing at the moment. On the other hand, they may carry on an aggressive campaign against the prevailing arrangements, a campaign which is apt to take precedence over other matters that need attention and, on the surface at least, have a prior claim to consideration. What then, from this point of view, was Norway's situation in the nineteenth century? On the positive side, her patriots were forever hailing the resumption of her independence in 1 8 1 4 . She had refused to be exchanged as a chattel. She had experienced a national rejuvenation and had given herself a national constitution. She had "voluntarily" entered a Union with Sweden. Invariably her citizens asserted—usually, it is fair to assume, they believed—that Norway was really "independent." So in a sense she was, but her independence retained some degree of ambiguity. It had suffered some abridgment in matters that outsiders might consider a test of independence. As it had taken form in 1 8 1 4 - 1 5 , the Union made it impossible for

P E A C E AND U N I O N I S T P O L I T I C S

127

Norwegians to boast of a single and exclusive head as the symbol of independence. It also specified certain obligations of common defense which some day might hamper the assertion of the fundamental right of national self-preservation. There was a third circumstance, however, that increasingly dismayed the Norwegian patriots: namely the fact that Norway had no foreign minister, no "voice" with which to speak to foreign countries, for example, when she wanted to protest against the South African War. 20 How this deficiency had come about we have explained above.21 Here we merely ask the reader to remember that, at the establishment of the Union, it had seemed most practical and economical for Norway to make use of Sweden's established diplomatic corps and consular service and of her prevailing arrangement for conducting foreign affairs. He should recall also that in practice this had left foreign affairs to the Swedish Foreign Minister and the "Ministerial" Cabinet, of which the only Norwegian member was the ranking Norwegian Minister at Stockholm. Norway, of course, had no department of foreign affairs. She had, in fact, no responsible agency to gather information about developments abroad until 1899, when the Bureau of Commerce and Shipping Affairs in the Department of the Interior was authorized to include foreign affairs within the purview of its interest. The reader will also recall that remarkably little had been said in the basic documents of 1814-15 about the conduct of foreign affairs. Given the slightest will to believe, the Norwegian patriots might conscientiously take for granted that Norway had never in principle relinquished any rights to control her foreign affairs and might in practice resume them whenever the moment should seem opportune. Nothing made quite so clear the growing inadequacy, from the Norwegian standpoint, of the procedure with regard to forzó Cf. H. Koht, "Fredsvennerne og Unionen," Folkets Supra, pp. 87-88.

Blad, April 7, 1900.

128

P E A C E AND U N I O N I S T

POLITICS

eign affairs, as the Storting's peace offensive in the nineties. On several occasions, as we have seen, the Storting pressed for action on matters which the agencies entrusted with the conduct of foreign affairs shunted aside or blocked. Such was the fate of the arbitration proposals, and Swedish authorities were no more sympathetic with the idea of a permanent Scandinavian neutrality. It irritated the Norwegians to have such issues discussed in the "Ministerial" Cabinet when, as they insisted, these were matters to be dealt with rather in meetings of the Norwegian Cabinet or of the joint Norwegian-Swedish Cabinet. No wonder some began to argue that the Union with Sweden was a bar to t h e r e a l i z a t i o n o f N o r w a y ' s

policies conccrning

the

peace

question.22 As things stood under the present Union, said Bj0rnson, Norway's wishes were interpreted to Europe, not by one of her own citizens, but by a Swede. When her government and her Storting indicated a desire to enter upon arbitration treaties, her advances were declined, and on her behalf too, by a Swedish Foreign Minister. 23 The arrangement could indeed be decidedly awkward. Especially the zealous patriots and peace workers who were so active in Stortingets Fredsforening discovered this when they came to meet representatives of foreign powers at international conferences, or when there were international agreements and treaties to be signed. Thus, the Inter-Parliamentary Conference at London in 1890, in selecting a committee to carry over affairs until the next meeting, took for granted that Norway and Sweden were to be jointly represented. In objecting to this Horst found it necessary to demand the floor and explain that Norway was an independent state. Furthermore, he reminded the assembled delegates, Norway's national assembly had really 2 2 Cf. H. Koht, L'Œuvre de l'état norvégien pour l'arbitrage pp. 4^3. 2 3 B. Bj0rnson, Anikler og Taler, Vol. II, pp. 167, 264.

et la

neutralité,

P E A C E AND U N I O N I S T POLITICS

129

24

done something for the arbitration cause. At the Conference in Rome the next year, the story was much the same. The meeting hall was decorated with the flags of the nations whose delegates were present—the flags, that is, of all of them except Norway! The Norwegian delegates did, however, succeed in having this rectified later.25 In connection with The Hague Conference, likewise, there were irritating developments. The Norwegian peace advocates would have preferred to have Norway and Sweden send separate delegates to the Conference, but in a "Ministerial" Cabinet meeting in February, 1899, it was decided that a certain Baron de Bildt should represent Norway and Sweden jointly, and be assisted by two advisers from each country. When it came to signing the conventions adopted at the Conference, the Norwegians sought to have the Baron signify the adhesions of Sweden and of Norway by a separate signature for each, but he signed for both simultaneously. In one sense, these were, of course, matters of form, but to good Norwegian patriots, they were matters of form touching the vital symbols of independence. The slights thus inflicted could hurt deeply. Lindboe, a j ingoist of the Left, later wanted to make the Storting's approval of moneys needed to carry out Norway's commitments under The Hague conventions conditional upon a clause that would clearly specify the validity of Norway's separate signature.28 NATIONALIST

IMPLICATIONS

OF THE STORTING'S

PEACE

OFFENSIVE

It should be evident from the foregoing that the Storting's favorable activity in the peace cause drew some of its vitality from the complications growing out of the Union with Sweden. 2

* Stortings Forhandlinger, 1891, V, dokument nr. 101, p. 8. Ibid., 1892, V, dokument nr. 118, p. 5. 2« Ibid., 1899-1900, VI, Indst. S nr. 44, p. 5. Cf. Ν. Gjelsvik, "Det internationale Ceremoniel og Suverteniteten," Samtiden, Vol. XVI, pp. 230-35. 25

130

PEACE AND UNIONIST

POLITICS

In the field of peace politics, the Storting could to good advantage—to especially good advantage, since it concurrently aligned itself with a great moral cause which none could afford openly to challenge—take the first faltering steps toward an independent foreign policy. It could realize in practice a fragment of that independence in the conduct of foreign affairs which it claimed it had never relinquished in principle. From a slightly different point of view, an aggressive peace program provided one more weapon with which to strike at Sweden and advance Norway's cause in the crisis over Union affairs. A citation or two from Bj0rnson will show how a bona fide argument for the peace program might simultaneously he a point made in favor of Norway's nationalist demands. The Scandinavian peoples, said he, were being asked, primarily by Sweden, to arm against the Russian foe. Supposing, however, that Norway secured an arbitration treaty with Russia, she could then ask Sweden why, since her (Norway's) permanent neutrality was thus assured, Sweden still denied her a foreign minister of her own. In the event of such an arrangement with Russia, the question of a separate minister would "solve itself." The Norwegians would be "masters in their own house," at peace "with Sweden" and with "the world." 27 Norway, in effect, was asking for her own foreign minister in order that she might pursue her separate policy of peace. 28 The spirit of Bj0rnson's argument was quite in keeping with that of the arbitration addresses of 1890 and 1897, in so far as these asked for treaties to be made with foreign states not by Norway-Sweden, but by Norway. Putting the matter on a limited national basis made it easy, apart from other considerations, to pursue the peace program as a distinctively national policy. Nor is it to be forgotten that the Conferences of the B. Bj0rnson, Mine Brev til Petersburgskija Vjedomosti, p. 44. B. Bj0mson, "Russland und Skandinavien," Die Zukunft, Vol. XIII, Nov. 2, 1895, p. 197. 27

28

P E A C E AND U N I O N I S T P O L I T I C S

131

Inter-Parliamentary Union offered something in the way of an international forum from which the Norwegian delegates might plead Norway's case against Sweden before Continental and a world opinion. The delegates had an opportunity to mingle on an equal basis with colleagues from foreign states, large as well as small—an opportunity not without special satisfaction to the delegates of a country that had no foreign office and lacked regular channels of diplomatic communication. Bearing in mind some of the foregoing considerations, we may readily explain the seeming anomaly presented by the Left, or rather by its aggressive radical wing. At one and the same time that wing supplied the most intractable nationalists, as well as the most ardent zealots in the service of the peace cause. As they pressed for an active peace policy, they forced Norway to pursue an independent foreign policy and simultaneously advanced their nationalist demands on Sweden. It would, however, be a mistake to infer that the Storting's support of the peace program was sustained chiefly by the complications of Unionist politics. These merely help to explain the special zeal and ardor which the Storting sometimes displayed. But the main impulse must be sought elsewhere, namely in the broad movement for peace which toward the close of the nineteenth century everywhere enlisted the sympathies of many liberals. Having now surveyed the general background of the peace movement in Norway and taken note of its special manifestations in the Storting, we are ready to consider the efforts made to carry into effect that part of Nobel's will in which he so signally honored the Norwegian Storting.

PART FOUR THE STORTING'S NOBEL COMMITTEE AND THE NORWEGIAN NOBEL

INSTITUTE

χ IMPLEMENTING NOBEL'S WILL T H E terms of Nobel's will were made public just after New Year's Day, 1897. It was indeed an honor that, after placing the administration of the other four prizes in Swedish hands, the great benefactor should have singled out the Norwegian Storting as the trustee, so to speak, of the Peace Prize. The Norwegian public might well be pardoned if, justifiably or not, it accepted his handsome gesture as a tribute to the prominent part the Storting was taking in advancing the peace movement.1 THE STORTING ACCEPTS NOBEL'S ASSIGNMENT

On March 24, the Storting was officially notified of the charge placed in its care. In the official communication from the executors, it was asked, in the event that it decided to accept the new responsibility, to select someone to represent it in the long negotiations that would be necessary before Nobel's wishes could be put into effect.2 In bringing the notice and the inquiry to the attention of the Storting on April 5, Steen as Speaker expressed the thanks of the nation for the high honor shown it and dedicated the Storting to a persistent endeavor to promote peace and justice among men. This, he suggested, would prove the most fitting and lasting monument it could erect to the memory of the donor. On April 26 the Storting voted to accept the proffered responsibility, and on August 7 it chose a committee of three—Chr. Schweigaard of the Right and Steen and Blehr of the Left—to represent it in the negotiations with the executors. It also proceeded to elect a committee of five, as 1 Det norske Fredsblad, Vol. IV, Jan. 30, 1897 ; cf. Bergens Tidende, Jan. 9, 1897; Dagbladet, Jan. 5 and 17, 1897. * Stortings Forhandlinger, 1897, V, dokument nr. 71.

136

IMPLEMENTING

NOBEL'S

WILL

specified in the will, to make the awards of the Prize and to exercise the trust put in the Storting. 3 The second set of appointments, however, was made somewhat precipitately. There was much to do before a prize-awarding body could go into operation. As executors, the two Swedish engineers, Ragnar Sohlman and Rudolf Liljeqvist, faced a very difficult task. 4 Nobel's will, legally considered, was a very inadequate instrument. It was, in fact, little more than a bare statement of intention, with precious little said of how that intention was to be made effective. The donor had designated no institution or juridical person as an heir to receive his bequest, administer it, and assign the income to the agencies that were to distribute the prizes. Furthermore—quite naturally, in the case of so loosely drawn an instrument—various relatives stepped forward to claim it invalid and to offer themselves as rightful heirs. As the negotiations with the Nobel family dragged on, and as new issues were introduced, the Storting in 1 8 9 8 chose a second group to represent it, replacing that selected in 1 8 9 7 . T h e new representatives were Emil Stang, Viggo Ullmann, and J a c o b Albert Lindboe

(1843-1902).

The latter was one of

the more intransigent members of the Left. He had refused all compromise with Sweden in the crisis of 1 8 9 5 , feeling that he was " i n covenant with the future," and he helped to keep astir such other national issues as the question of the flag. At the same time, he was a supporter of the Left's peace program. The three negotiators, in the name of the Storting, approved in 1 8 9 8 arrangements which the executors had made with the claimant heirs, whereby the latter in return for about one and a half year's income from the estate agreed to waive all claims upon it for the future. 5 Ibid., 1897, VII, 430, 593, 2146. Verdens Gang, Feb. 5, 1902, p. 1. 5 Stortings Forhandlinger, 1898, V, dokument nr. 108 ; 1898-99, V, dokument nr. 50. The long negotiations concerning the estate may be followed in the Protokoll 3 4

IMPLEMENTING NOBEL'S WILL

137

Henceforth the task was simpler. The parties directly concerned with the will—namely, the two executors, the two persons who by arrangement represented the Nobel family (or better, perhaps, the Nobel clan), and the negotiators chosen by each of the four prize-awarding bodies—proceeded with the task of drawing up Statutes for a Foundation, that is, for an entity recognizable in law which might administer the estate and devote the income to the purposes intended by the inventor. As a basis for discussion the group employed a set of draft Statutes which had been prepared by Carl Lindhagen. It was Lindhagen, by the way, who throughout the long legal struggle to protect the foreign holdings of Nobel's estate against unfavorable action by the governments concerned, and the concerted effort of the Nobel heirs to secure a disposition more favorable to themselves, served the two executors of the will as their legal adviser. As the Statutes took form, they provided for a Nobel Foundation which was to act under the authority of the Swedish Crown. Administratively, it was to rest upon the four bodies which were to distribute the prizes, namely, the Swedish Academy, the Caroline Institute, the Swedish Academy of Sciences, and the Norwegian Storting. The Foundation was to have a governing body of fifteen members—six chosen by the Academy of Sciences, which had two prizes under its care, and three chosen by each of the three other prize-awarding bodies. There was to be an Administrative Council of five members, four chosen for two-year terms by the governing body of fifteen, and the fifth, serving as president, appointed by the Swedish Crown. The financial and administrative authority of the Foundation was lodged in this Council. It was to administer all the funds and properties of the Foundation and to distribute to the sevhdllna vid Sammanträden for Ofverläggning om Alfred Nobels Testamente (Stockholm, 1899), and C. Lindhagen, Carl Lindhagens Memoarer, Vol. I, pp. 246-79. See also Sohlman and Schiick, op. cit., pp. 246-60; R. Moe, Le Prix Nobel de la paix et l'institut Nobel norvégien, Vol. I, pp. 30-46; and K. A. H. Mömer, "Notice eur l'organisation de la Fondation Nobel," Les Prix Nobel en 1901, pp. 23-29.

138

I M P L E M E N T I N G N O B E L ' S WILL

eral prize-awarding bodies funds with which to meet their routine expenses. Acting upon the recommendations of these bodies, it was to authorize the disbursement of prize money to the prize winners." The Statutes were completed by April, 1899, and were then submitted to the prize-awarding bodies and to the Swedish Crown for approval. On May 23 the Storting gave its approval unanimously. The Statutes were finally declared in force by royal decree, promulgated in Stockholm under date of June 29, 1900.7 The prize-awarding groups accordingly elected the fifteen members of the governing body. On September 27, 1900, these in turn chose the four members of the Administrative Council, who, together with the fifth member, appointed the next day by the Crown, were to assume charge of the Foundation as of January 1, 1901. At last the machinery for carrying out the will was in order. The first distribution of prizes was fixed for the following December. THE

PERSONNEL OF T H E STORTING'S

COMMITTEE

Ambiguous as he had been in certain fundamentals, Nobel had at any rate been specific in designating by name the Swedish prize-awarding bodies. With regard to the Peace Prize, however, he had again been less definite. True enough, he mentioned the Storting by name. Instead of designating the Storting as a prize-awarding body, however, he made it responsible for the selection of a committee to award the Peace Prize and gave no indication of what qualifications he wanted the members of such a committee to possess.8 The Storting therefore proceeded, in August, 1897, to lay 8

The offices of the Council are at Sturegatan 14, Stockholm. First printed in 1900-1901 and subsequently made available in French, English, and German translations, they may be consulted in Nobelstiftelsens Grundstadgar jämte särskilda Bestämmelser angáende Prisutdelningen (Stockholm, 1924). Notes on the personnel currently functioning in connection with the Foundation and the constituent bodies are to be had in the up-to-date directories entitled Nobelstiftelsens Kalender (Stockholm, 1906—). 8 For the relevant passages of the will see Appendix A. 7

I M P L E M E N T I N G NOBEL'S WILL

139

down regulations for the selection and tenure of such a committee. It decided that it would elect the members of this Nobel Committee at the last session of each Storting term, that is, once every three years. The term of membership on the Committee was to be six years, and the personnel was given a revolving character by the provision that two members should retire at the end of three years and the remainder at the end of six. Quite unable, naturally, to foresee that its Committee would not be called upon to act for several years, the Storting proceeded immediately, as we have seen, to select its five members. Those chosen were Steen, Lund, Bj0rnson, j0rgen L0vland, and Bernhard Getz.® By 1900 three years had elapsed. According to the Storting's prescription, the terms of two members of the Committee, designated by drawing lots, were to end. Bj0mson and L0vland were thus indicated, and the first regular elections were held to fill these two vacancies. In the end, the two members were reelected readily enough,10 but the occasion evoked a lengthy debate on May 22, 1900, regarding certain general principles." It was as if a deeper realization of the significance of the Nobel Committee had made its way since 1897—a realization that the proper constitution of such a Committee was a responsibility which the Storting now owed not alone to Nobel's memory but to the world at large. The point at issue in the debate was whether the Committee should be strictly Norwegian or representatively international in its personnel. Nobel had given no indication of any wish in the matter. But Paragraph Six of the recently completed draft Statutes for the Nobel Foundation at Stockholm specified that the Storting's Committee might be composed of "others than Norwegians." It was a representative from Bergen who raised the issue in 8

Stortings Forhandlinger, 1897, VII, 2146. ι» Ibid., 1899-1900, VII, 2419. » Ibid., VII, 2024-34.

140

IMPLEMENTING

NOBEL'S

WILL

a pointed form. Ferdinand Christian Prahl ( 1 8 4 0 - 1 9 1 7 ) was the son of a Bergen merchant and shipper who had given encouragement beyond the ordinary to local workers' societies. In the Storting, Prahl had taken a special interest in extending constitutional control to cover the royal power over the military, and he was among the twenty-four intransigent members who had voted against the move to conciliate Sweden in 1895. Prahl argued that the cause for which the Committee was to work was so important internationally, and that its task was so comprehensive, that it ought to include foreigners as well as Norwegians in its membership. He therefore wanted to postpone until autumn decision on the proposal before the house to reëlect the two members whose terms had just been terminated by lot. If circumstances then seemed to warrant it, he wished to have all the members of the Committee place their positions at the disposal of the Storting. Basic changes, if they were to be made, he insisted, should be made promptly; by the time elections to the Committee were again in order, in another three years, several prizes would already have been awarded and it would be awkward to make fundamental changes. Prahl, it may be added, contemplated the possibility that Christiania might become an international peace center, boasting a substantial peace institute, and annually visited by peace pilgrims from various parts of the world. Curiously enough, Prahl was best supported by a colleague who had been as unyielding as he during the crisis with Sweden in 1895. J a c o b Lindboe agreed that the task assigned to the Storting was of international scope. That the donor had so intended was evident from the magnitude of the sum he had provided. And he had sought to make certain that his bequest should be of international importance, said Lindboe, by entrusting its distribution to the Norwegian Storting, which had distinguished itself in peace work. Any effort the Storting made to transcend narrow national or Scandinavian considerations

I M P L E M E N T I N G N O B E L ' S WILL

141

would be not a violation but a fulfilment of Nobel's intention. Such magnanimity and breadth of view were too much for some members, among them John Lund. Nobel's intention, insisted Lund, had been that "little Norway" should have the "exclusive" honor of administering the Peace Prize—Lindboe would not be able to argue that fact away so easily! It would, said Lund, be a "sin" against Nobel's will to deprive the Norwegians of this honor, while it certainly would be most advantageous and beneficial if they kept the control in their own hands. Besides, the idea of admitting foreigners raised certain practical difficulties. Only a few countries at a time could be honored in this way. No matter who was chosen, someone would always feel that the choice was somehow invidious. Sweden as Nobel's fatherland would certainly be entitled to recognition. Some measure of Lund's indignation was reflected in his outburst that he could not "regard it otherwise than almost as an insult to Nobel's memory, that we Norwegians, who have received this honorable mandate, this distinguished commission, which has brought a flattering attention to our fatherland from elsewhere in Europe, should now hand ourselves that 'vote of lack of confidence' which a decision to include foreigners would imply." If the present members of the Committee (and Lund was one of them) were not fully qualified for the task then surely other compatriots could be found who would be. Lindboe in turn asked Lund to remember that Nobel had designated not the Storting but a committee selected by the Storting; furthermore he had not sought to restrict the Storting's choice in any way. True enough, replied Lund, but in his unshakable opinion, Nobel, beyond the shadow of a doubt, had intended the committee to be composed of Norwegians. So too "the entire world" had understood, at the time the will first became known. Lund conceded that it might prove feasible to recruit from abroad the services of experts or of secretaries, but he insisted that the Norwegians must be accepted as capable

142

IMPLEMENTING

NOBEL'S

WILL

of assuming the ultimate responsibilities. Another member who felt as he did styled the proposal to recruit foreigners " a declaration of bankruptcy," and observed that there seemed to be an excessive desire among Norwegians to seek foreign aid. In the course of the debate, Carl Berner, a Speaker in the Odelsting, informed Lund and others that the question of having foreigners on the Committee had been debated back in 1897, at the time of the first election. Berner himself had favored admitting one foreigner, but in the end the Committee making the nomination had decided that "this time" it would recommend "Norwegians exclusively" for membership on the Nobel Committee. F U R T H E R DEBATE ON T H E

PERSONNEL

The debate in the Storting was extended to the press, and a somewhat ponderous article in Morgenbladet, possibly by 12 Hagerup, discussed the matter at length. Speaking rather caustically of Lund, the writer heartily endorsed the proposal to have foreigners represented on the Committee. He took the attitude that it was high time something was done to redeem a "tactlessness" committed three years earlier at the first election, when the "radical" majority in the Storting (the Left, that is) had filled four of the five places on the Committee with colleagues of its own party—three politicians and one poet, none of whom had any specialized training in international law —and had given only one seat to a neutral person, Getz, a scholar not active in politics. Something must soon be done if the Committee were to "recover" the dignity and authority without which the whole endeavor would lose the character intended for it by the testator. The best way to redress the situation would be to elect two distinguished foreigners who might enrich the Committee with a competence of specialized knowledge, which no one—here the writer's sarcasm was cer12

"Nobelkomiteen," Morgenbladet,

May 26, 1900.

I M P L E M E N T I N G NOBEL'S WILL

143

tainly blunt enough—would ever think of ascribing "to persons like Mr. John Lund or Mr. L^vland." The choice of two such individuals would serve to assure foreigners that a real effort was being made to give the Committee a nonpartisan composition, untouched by political considerations. Besides, added the writer, there was a fair probability that the Committee would be called upon to administer a projected Nobel Institute, something the world would watch with considerable interest. Significantly enough, the writer went on, it was John Lund who most violently objected to this proposal to admit foreigners. Obviously Lund was "fighting pro domo." As for his contention that the admission of foreigners would be an outrage to Nobel's memory, the writer asked whether Lund happened to realize that the idea of admitting foreigners was acceptable to the executors of the will, who ought to have some idea of Nobel's wishes and intention, and agreeable also to the Norwegian Storting, which on May 23, 1899, had approved the Statutes proposed for the Nobel Foundation, including the paragraph which expressly stated that others than Norwegians might have places on the Storting's Nobel Committee. Lund's argument that the admission of foreigners would lead to competition and jealousy and entail a feeling of favoritism seemed to this writer to lack any substantial basis. Such unpleasant consequences could be minimized and excluded if the appointments were made not on a personal but on a representative or ex-officio basis. There was no question of choosing more than two foreign members, and it would work very well to arrange for the representation of the Institute of International Law and the Inter-Parliamentary Union, two institutions of vital importance in international peace work. The personal element might be quite eliminated, for instance, by having the presidents of the two organizations serve. Should it occasionally happen that the presiding officer in either institution was a Norwegian, his immediate predecessor could serve. There

144

IMPLEMENTING

NOBEL'S

WILL

could be no question about qualifications in such appointments, certainly not in the case of the Institute of International Law. In conclusion the writer underscored his plea that the personnel of the Committee be not restricted to Norwegians. In the end, the principle of the first elections became a precedent. Only Norwegians had been recommended for the Committee the first time, in 1897, and these nominations the Storting had approved. Then in 1900, in spite of the sentiment in favor of some foreign representation, Norwegians were chosen to fill the first vacancies. Since then this procedure has never been seriously questioned. T H E C O M M I T T E E F O R M A L L Y C O N S T I T U T E D : BERNHARD G ETZ

Though first elected in 1897, the Storting's Nobel Committee was in a sense not finally constituted and officially authorized to set about its work until the Statutes of the Nobel Foundation had been promulgated at Stockholm in June, 1900. Thereafter it could proceed to the organization that was necessary to enable it most effectively to carry on its duties. It took official action in this respect on September 12, 1900, and proceeded to its authorized duty of selecting the three persons that were to represent it on the Foundation's governing board of fifteen. On January 2 2 , 1901, it adopted provisionally certain regulations 13 (definitively ratified on April 10, 1 9 0 5 ) to govern its own procedure and the procedure to be observed in nominating candidates for the Peace Prize. 14 Heretofore known as the Norwegian Nobel Committee, the Committee on November 29, 1901, adopted as its official designation The Norwegian Storting's Nobel Committee ("Comité Nobel du Parlement nor'

·

vegien 13 14 15

\

).

15

Νobelstiftelsens Grundstadgar, pp. 26-29. Stortings Forhandlinger, 1900-1901, V, dokument Ibid., 1902-3, V, dokument nr. 31, p. 1.

nr. 50.

I M P L E M E N T I N G NOBEL'S WILL

145

The Committee selected as its first president the brilliant Christiania jurist, Bernhard Getz (1850-1901)." Born at Trondhjem, Getz finished his law course in 1873, with the highest honors conferred on any student since A. M. Schweigaard, in 1831. He became professor of jurisprudence in 1876, but after 1885 his energies were largely devoted to conference and committee work. He served on various legal commissions which reworked a considerable part of Norway's legal code, and at times his influence was decisive in matters of fundamental importance. Thus, he was influential in having included in the report of the commission on the jury system the principle of lay collaboration in courts employing jury trial, and he secured recognition for the social point of view in the revision of Norway's criminal law, arguing that society's major concern should not be revenge but, if possible, the reform of the criminal. He was penetratingly clear in relating details to fundamentals, and he revealed at all times a facility for adjusting theories to the demands of practical life. Something of the resiliency of his mind can be sampled in a treatise on democracy which he composed at the time of the great triumph of the Left in 1884.17 When a new committee on Union affairs was appointed to liquidate the tension of 1895, Getz was made chairman of the Norwegian section of this committee. What commended Getz for membership on the Nobel Committee was not so much his technical knowledge—his specialty was not international law, but domestic, municipal law—as his general brilliance in legal matters and his frequent labors on basic codes that were being redrafted. He had become almost a specialist on projects in their tentative state, which was exactly the condition of the Nobel Committee's affairs just before 1β

Studentene fra 1868 (Christiania, 1919), pp. 102-12; F. G. Hagerup, "Bernhard Getz," Aftenposten, 1901, Noe. 801, 804, reprinted in Tidsskrift for Retsvidenskab, Vol. XIV (1901), pp. 341-57. " B. Getz, Om Demokratie! (Christiania, 1885).

146

IMPLEMENTING NOBEL'S WILL

1900. In addition, since he was the only member not of the Left, he gave a certain balance to the Committee. But the Committee had only brief use of his scintillating mind, for he died prematurely in November, 1901, just a few weeks before the first Nobel Prize was to be awarded.

XI PLANS FOR A NOBEL INSTITUTE T H E group which drafted the Statutes of the Nobel Foundation clearly perceived at the outset that the prize-granting bodies would need specialized advice in their respective fields. The Storting's Committee, for instance, would need aid in the specialties of modern history, political economy, and international law, and in related disciplines, to help it make authoritative decisions on the distribution of the Peace Prize. And so it was with the other prize-awarding bodies. Hence in Paragraphs Eleven and Twelve of the Statutes each prize-granting body was authorized, if it saw fit, to establish for its use a technical service to be known as a Nobel Institute. Each such Institute would through library or laboratory resources assist its parent body by assembling the data that would best serve to make the decisions on awards in each field most discriminating and authoritative. In certain respects, the financial resources of each such Institute were made inviolate; thus, no prize-awarding body could use these resources to supplement prize money or to aid other institutions. The prize-awarding bodies might also appoint foreign men and women to their Institute staffs. A s it has turned out, all of the Swedish bodies have provided for their separate Nobel Institutes, the Caroline Institute apparently having done so only recently. But it is the Storting's Nobel Committee which has made the most extensive use of the authority granted it in this respect. It has established an elaborate Norwegian Nobel Institute in Oslo, which is housed in a building of its own and which subsidizes several activities looking to the promotion of the major aim of its Committee.

148

P L A N S FOR A NOBEL

INSTITUTE

The establishment of the Institute was attended by lengthy deliberations and plans which we may notice in some detail. THE

DROLSUM

DRAFT

What lends interest to these plans is the fact that they contemplated an institution of very imposing dimensions—nothing less than a great international Institute fit to rank with the Court of Arbitration at The Hague or with the Inter-Parliamentary Union. This was as true of the plans submitted from abroad as of those of domestic origin. We shall here refer particularly to the latter. The chief plan of local origin sprang from the initiative taken by the librarian Drolsum, and it remained associated with his name. Axel Chariot Drolsum (1846-1927) 1 is certainly more widely remembered as an eager patriot than as an ardent peace worker. At the University Library he had been able to initiate two practices with a nationalist tinge. He had been instrumental in getting all the Norwegian books of the Library separated out to form "the Norwegian Division," and he had succeeded in having a law passed in 1882 to the effect that a copy of every item printed in the country must be supplied to the Library. He had been active in the work of the Rifle Clubs in the eighties, 2 and he was a consistent supporter of the later programs to improve the country's arms and defenses. In the critical year 1905 he was very active as a publicist, urging support of Norway's cause, in foreign periodicals. The contemplated Nobel Institute may have interested Drolsum partly because he was a librarian, but more, it is to be surmised, because he saw that it offered a prospect of bringing distinguished foreign attention to Norway. Before the basic Statutes of the Nobel Foundation at Stockholm had been com1 2

Studentene fra 1864 C f . supra, p. 36.

(Skien, 1 9 1 6 ) , pp. 50-71.

PLANS FOR A NOBEL I N S T I T U T E

149

pleted, he had privately prevailed upon the three Norwegian members who were representing the Storting's interests during the drafting of those Statutes to exchange views on the subject of an Institute with various individuals at the University in Christiania. Those consulted were Aschehoug, the political economist; Gjelsvik, the student of international law; Hagerup and Morgenstierne, jurists; and Storm, Hertzberg, and Taranger, historians.8 Together with Drolsum, these men were informally authorized to work out a draft of statutes for the contemplated Institute. The group held several meetings. When the Nobel Committee formally constituted itself on September 12, 1900, it authorized the private Drolsum group to continue its work and present suggestions for an Institute.4 The group based its discussions upon a preliminary draft worked out by Drolsum. In the archives of the Norwegian Nobel Institute, there is a typewritten draft bearing the signature of Drolsum.® It is dated March 29, 1900, from Aavold in Vestre Aker, a suburban commune adjacent to the present Oslo. This probably represents the deliberations at a rather late stage. In any case, it indicates pretty well what Drolsum intended the contemplated Institute to be. The first few pages of this draft belabored the point that the function of deciding who had done most to promote peace among peoples was a task not so much for laymen as for specialists and experts—after all, international law had begun with Grotius' On the Law of War and Peace, that is, with a book. The Storting, if it were to fulfil its duty in a manner worthy of "a national assembly which sought to govern its people primarily by positing right over against might" and in a manner that would command the respect of the entire civilized world, would 3 Morgenbladet, Oct. 9, 1901. « Verdens Gang, Sept. 13, 1900, p. 2. 6 Nobelkomiteen, Forelœg vedk. Νobelinstitutet : Udkast til Statuter Institute! i Christiania.

for Nobel-

150

P L A N S FOR A NOBEL

INSTITUTE

have to lean upon capable and recognized authorities in several specialized fields, notably in history, economics, and politics. If it were to attract authorities of such eminence, however, a Norwegian Institute, if for no other reason than paucity of numbers, would have to seek them mainly outside of the Scandinavian countries. The problem then became how to enlist the talents of distinguished foreigners. One procedure would be to call for their opinions regarding the merits of the candidates for the Peace Prize. But this would be cumbersome and uncertain and would stereotype a procedure more "academicl i t e r a r y " than s e e m e d d e s i r a b l e . A better p l a n — w h i c h would

concurrently promote the fraternization of peoples—would be to have a substantial number of distinguished men, especially from the strong and powerful states, meet at definite times on "neutral territory." Christiania—"our capital"—was eminently qualified as a center for this purpose; it was the logical place for an agency associated with the granting of the Peace Prize, since Nobel had placed ultimate responsibility in the hands of the Storting. This proposal was predicated upon the assumption that foreigners could be induced to participate. And after all, said the draft, that should be possible. True, there were erroneous conceptions abroad in Europe about the remoteness of Christiania's location, but these could surely be corrected. Cologne and Brussels were closer to Christiania than they were to Rome, Berlin closer to Christiania than it was to Paris. True also, Christiania was quite far to the north, and it would be difficult to get outstanding foreigners to establish permanent residences there, even if generous salaries were offered. But it should be quite feasible to arrange annual meetings; furthermore, members could be obligated to keep in touch with a central committee or with certain officials left in charge and to respond to queries from them. The foreign specialists must,

P L A N S FOR A NOBEL INSTITUTE

151

of course, be well remunerated for the time they gave to the answering of inquiries and to the formulating of opinions, and compensated for the expenses of travel involved in an annual one-week or two-week stay in the Norwegian capital. The Institute should have the services of a full-time general secretary, partly to help centralize efforts and partly because connections with foreign members and other foreigners would need to be cultivated with no little "special knowledge, linguistic proficiency, and tact." The whole endeavor must be housed in first-class quarters, though, to begin with, a single floor might be adequate, as suitable halls in the vicinity—the quarters must be centrally located—would be available for the annual meetings. The Institute's first concern should be to provide a library equipped to serve the specialized needs of the fields relating to peace. As it would be located some distance from the center of Europe, the foreign specialists would have to be accommodated no matter where their residence happened to be. A library mail service would have to be provided, and hence the library's location would be of minor moment, for it made little difference whether the book delivery service took one or two or three days. There might also be museum quarters for maps and other illustrative material. This Institute should undertake to issue at Christiania an annual report, or perhaps a regular periodical. Following this lengthy preamble, the Drolsum draft took up the statutes for the intended Institute and concluded with an appendix of notes. An abstract of the proposed statutes will be worth our while. Article One provided for a Nobel Institute in Christiania to assist the Storting and promote Nobel's aims. A note to this article made clear that there must be no thought of competing with similar institutes already functioning abroad, this reference presumably being to the International Law Association or to the Institute of International Law. Next, the membership of the Institute was defined. The num-

152

PLANS FOR A NOBEL

INSTITUTE

ber of ordinary memberships, according to Article Two, was to be set at twenty-five. The number needed to be high, it was explained in a note, because several absences must be expected. The Council of the Institute was to be composed of five other members who were in a sense ex-officio, since, as Article Three specified, they were to be the members of the Storting's Nobel Committee. The latter's chairman and vice-chairman were to serve as the equivalent officials of the Institute. The Council was to have its seat at Christiania. Foreigners might be eligible to membership in it, but the chairman, vice-chairman and at least one other member ought to be living in Christiania or near enough to attend meetings on short notice. The Council thus serving as the Bureau of the Institute was, according to Article Four, to appoint a paid secretary-general, who might be given a vote in some of the deliberations; a note explained that this seemed particularly important in order to enhance his status in foreign eyes. The Council was to choose other functionaries needed for the library, and other positions, and it was to be qualified to transact business when the chairman, the vice-chairman, and the secretary-general were present. The twenty-five ordinary members, explained Article Five, were to be chosen because of their standing in modern history, private or international law, or other fields of the social sciences, or because of their activities in practical statesmanship or in the service of the peace cause. Also eligible for election were to be members of foreign cabinets or diplomats in active service, though if they entered such service after becoming members of the Institute their membership in the latter, without lapsing, was to remain in abeyance, with reference to voting privileges, until their political service was ended. The first list of members was to be selected by the Storting on recommendation of the Council and a special committee, but future vacancies were to be filled on the recommendation of the

PLANS FOR A NOBEL I N S T I T U T E

153

Institute members themselves. Selections were to be made without regard to nationality, though no more than five were to be from the same state. Norway and Sweden, it was expressly stated, were to be counted for this purpose as two separate states. The nominating arrangement had been made as simple as possible, it was explained in a note, by giving the Council an important rôle. This body might have been given a broader rôle also in the final election. However—and one notes that it is with some eagerness that the Norwegian Storting is brought into the picture—it seemed worthier and more dignified to have the members chosen for the first time by the Storting itself. Their commission would thus take on some of the attribute of public authority, and it was the stamp of such authority that it was hoped might be given to the Institute. By way of remuneration, Article Six assigned an annual honorarium of 1,000 francs to each of the ordinary members, together with extra compensation, at the discretion of the Council, for answers to requests for opinions. What the members of the Council were to receive would have to be decided by the Storting, since, as members of the Nobel Committee also, they were really the appointees of the Storting. The members of the Institute were to be obligated, according to Article Seven, to render opinions when these were requested and, so far as circumstances allowed, to attend the annual meeting in Christiania. This, it was promised, would be held "at a good season." Just a touch of local pride and enthusiasm crept into a note expressing the opinion that members would find it both useful and pleasant to make the trip at this "good season," once they actually came to realize that it was a less laborious undertaking than commonly believed. Again distances were compared; centers like Berlin or St. Petersburg, it was said, were closer to Christiania than to Geneva or Rome or Naples. Furthermore,

154

PLANS

FOR A NOBEL

INSTITUTE

improvements in communications were fully developed to southern points but not to northern ones; hence reductions in the disadvantages of the latter relatively greater than in those of the former could still be expected. The annual meeting of the Institute, said Article Eight, would deliberate upon the aims of the Institute and discuss the candidates for the Peace Prize. All decisions, said Article Nine, would be taken by simple majority, in the Council as well as in the annual meeting. Absent members could vote by mail, and tie votes would be resolved by the chairman. Articles Ten and Eleven discussed the publication of a periodical or of an annual report, and certain duties of the secretary-general. Finally, according to Article Twelve, the finances of the Institute were to be scrutinized by the Storting, while the latter, as required by Article Thirteen, was to approve any proposal adopted for the amendment of these statutes. Following Article Thirteen was a sample budget for the proposed Institute. SUGGESTIONS

FROM

ABROAD

There is no need in this study to discuss, beyond a brief reference, the suggestions which originated abroad. The Belgian jurist Descamps ( 1 8 4 7 — ) , who in the middle nineties had prepared for the Inter-Parliamentary Union a project of a permanent court of international arbitration, published in the autumn of 1900 draft statutes 8 for the proposed Nobel Institute. He recommended an Institute of twenty members, eight of them non-Norwegians. The Institute was to be organized in two sections, one specializing on research and the other giving advisory opinions. Comments upon Descamps' plan were received from the German authority on international law, Professor Ludvig von Bar of Göttingen ( 1 8 3 6 - 1 9 1 3 ) , and the Finnish statesman, 9 Édouard Descamps, " L a Fondation Nobel et les institutions auxiliaires qu* elle comporte: projet d'érection d'un Institut Nobel de la p a i x , " Bulletin de Γ Académie royale de Belgique, Nos. 9-10, September-October, 1900, pp. 736-49.

PLANS FOR A NOBEL INSTITUTE

155

Professor Leo (Leopold Henrik Stanislaus) Mechelin ( 1 8 3 9 1 9 1 4 ) . The latter's comments bore the date February, 1901, the former's that of November 2, 1900. 7 In a study this same year Von Bar 8 discussed the question of an "international Academy" to adjust the disputes among nations. He had no faith in the arbitration idea, and he hoped for no positive results from the recently established Court of Arbitration at The Hague; no strong state would trust its essential interests to such a procedure. Von Bar had in mind another means to discourage resort to war; he wished to have advisory opinions delivered beforehand by some nonpartisan institution of recognized authority. Such an institution, he said, was lacking—the Institute of International Law he thought too much concerned with theoretic considerations and with general principles. But an institution of the recognized authority he had in mind would be able to exert a profound moral pressure by means of its unbiased advisory opinions. He intimated that the resources Nobel had made available might in this connection find " a very useful application." This idea seems to have found approval also with the Italian authority on international law, Professor Brusa, 9 and it reappeared later in the argumentation of a Norwegian committee in 1902. 1 0 PLANS OF G ETZ AND OF A UNIVERSITY

COMMITTEE

Meanwhile the somewhat informal group working with Drolsum had drawn into its discussions the chairman of the Nobel Committee, Bernhard Getz. Having access to some of the plans and comments to which we have referred, 11 Getz proceeded to make a draft of his own. The undated draft in the Nobel InstiSee Bibliography, p. 302. L. von Bar, Der Burenkrieg, die Russificirung Finnlands, die Haager Friederuconferenz und die Errichtung eine internationale Academie zur Ausgleichung von Streitigkeiten der Staaten (Hanover, 1900). 9 "Nobelkomiteen," Morgenbladet, May 26, 1900. 10 Stortings Forhandlinger, 1903-4, V, dokument nr. 37, p. 3. 11 "Nobelstiftelsen," Morgenbladet, Oct. 9, 1901. 7

8

156

P L A N S FOR A N O B E L

INSTITUTE

tute's archives, which purports to be his, 12 contains fifteen articles, and in a number of passages it parallels the Drolsum draft. It is the differences that are worth our notice. In the first place, Getz favored a smaller Institute. He specified (Article Three) a membership of fifteen, six Norwegians and nine foreigners. Yet, in a second sense, he contemplated a larger undertaking, for, in addition to this basic membership, he provided (Article Four) for the enrollment of a maximum of thirty corresponding members. To get the project under way, three of the first six Norwegians were to be chosen by the Crown and the other three by the Storting. The six thus indicated were to select the nine foreign members, to be drawn from as many countries as possible. These were to serve for life or until they resigned, and vacancies were to be filled by the members themselves. The members were to elect for six-year terms (Article Five) their own chairman, vice-chairman, and secretary-general, the three to constitute the Institute's Bureau. Getz's proposal assigned rather important functions to the Bureau. Together with two other members of the Institute, it was (Article Nine) to constitute a committee to receive proposals regarding awards of the Peace Prize, and it was also to render opinions on the persons or institutions to be taken into consideration and on the advisability of making any particular award. With the approval of the Nobel Committee, the Bureau might each year (Article Eleven) invite a prominent scholar to give a series of lectures in Christiania on a subject germane to the peace cause. In order to encourage similar studies or to clear up debatable points, the Institute might also (Article Ten) call upon specialists among its regular or corresponding members or might offer prizes for dissertations on such subjects, in which case the Bureau would make the awards. Getz also had definitely in mind (Article Thirteen) a yearbook to include 12

Nobelkomiteen, Forelceg vedk. Nobelinstitutet II. Foreslag til Statuter, etc. Bilag C: Rigsadvokat Getz's Udkast til Statuier for et Norsk Nobelinstitut.

P L A N S FOR A NOBEL INSTITUTE

157

papers by members of the Institute, by prize winners, and by others. The power to amend these statutes he placed (Article Fifteen) in the hands of the Nobel Committee and the Institute. One other draft of statutes remains to be briefly considered. The University group which had long collaborated with Drolsum was on September 12, 1901, finally given by the Nobel Committee, a definite commission to work out a draft of statutes for the proposed Institute. It had before it the various drafts and suggestions of Drolsum, Getz, Descamps, Von Bar, Mechelin, and others. In the report which it submitted on November 23, 1901,13 it proposed a set of statutes which followed rather closely the draft of Getz, who had died earlier the same month. Whereas Getz planned to have three of the six Norwegian members of the Institute chosen by the Crown and three by the Storting, the commission chose (Article Three) to have these appointments made by the Nobel Committee. It also proposed (Article Five) to enlarge the Bureau so as to include two regular members of the Institute and to require that at least the secretary-general and two other members of the Bureau should be living in Christiania. Whereas Getz suggested that the Institute committee to assist the Nobel Committee in preliminary consideration of Peace Prize candidates be composed of the Bureau and two other members, the commission preferred (Article Nine) a committee of five members, regular or corresponding, serving for definite two-year terms, expiring alternately, three at one time and two at the other. Interestingly enough, the commission chose (Article Ten) to endow the Institute with authority to deliver advisory opinions to the parties in an international dispute, thus in effect calling for further consideration of Von Bar's proposal. We have dealt at some length with these plans for an Institute, mainly in order to show in what an expansive frame of 18 Nobelkomiteen, Forelag vedk. Nobdinstitutet: Universitetskommissionens Indstilling; ci. Stortings Forhandlinger, 19034, V, dokument nr. 37, pp. 9-11.

158

PLANS

FOR

A NOBEL

INSTITUTE

mind responsible Norwegian circles at the turn of the century considered the project of a Norwegian Nobel Institute. Clearly, they thought of something more than a body auxiliary to the Nobel Committee; they had in mind nothing less than a peace institute of world-wide fame and renown, one of ranking importance in the program of the world's peace endeavors. The contemplated Institute, Ullmann had said in the course of the big debate on the Committee's personnel in 1900, would be a significant institution, one "thoroughly European."

14

With some

individuals contemplating a project of such scope, we can more easily understand their willingness, which we saw in the previous chapter, to admit a foreigner or two to the Nobel Committee. A

MODEST

INSTITUTE

DECIDED

UPON

The final decision in the matter of an Institute rested with the Nobel Committee, which deliberated upon the matter at various meetings over a period of several years. Very little information about these discussions filtered out to the public,15 though divided counsels were reported.16 There was no lack of plans and suggestions, but there might well be misgivings about launching an international institute of such scope as some planners glibly proposed. The Committee did not come to a final decision until November, 1903, when it decided upon an Institute quite of its own choosing. The Committee decided in favor of a very modest Institute. It chose to provide itself with an agency that would be of help primarily in the annual task of awarding the Peace Prize. At the outset, it had taken steps to begin assembling a library for its special needs. It had, of course, provided itself with secretarial services. It now confirmed these practical steps and chose 14 Stortings Forhandlinger, 1899-1900, V I I , 2026. For verifying this citation as well as that of note 10 on page 277, the writer is indebted to Professor Einar I . Haugen of the University of Wisconsin. 15 Cf. Verdens Gang, Sept. 13, 1900; Morgenbladet, Oct. 9, 1901; Freds-Tidende, Vol. I I , Mar. 1, 1902; Stortings Forhandlinger, 1903-4, V, dokument nr. 37, p. 3. 16 "Nobelkomiteen," Aftenposten, Nov. 28, 1901.

PLANS FOR A NOBEL INSTITUTE

159

to be satisfied to build further on such restricted and rather local and private beginnings, though within the limitations of its moderate organization it enjoined the Institute to help promote the peaceful intercourse of peoples. It decided completely against any large international Institute with a personnel of international scope and a universally recognized authority. Such plans, after all, had been predicated upon the receipt of quite a sizable annual income. Feeling that it quite lacked the means to set up a comprehensive Institute, it had elected to proceed more modestly 17 and to be content, for the time being at least, with library and secretarial services which would render it immediate and practical assistance. The by-laws which it adopted 18 for the Institute comprised only four short articles. The Institute was declared established under the authority of the Storting's Nobel Committee, which was to have general supervision over its expenditures and personnel. The purpose of the Institute was to keep informed of international relations, to work for their peaceful continuance, and to assist the Committee in its task of awarding the Peace Prize. In addition, the Institute was asked to work in a general way to promote justice, peaceful intercourse, and brotherhood among nations. Some scholarly research and some popular education could be carried on in conjunction with the library that was taking shape, and some of the available funds might be used to support similar work elsewhere at home and abroad. An annual report of activities was to be made to the Storting. DISCUSSIONS OF

L A T E R D A T E REGARDING

A

LARGER

INSTITUTE

An Institute of such limited scope was a poor substitute indeed for the broadly conceived international Institute of which 17

Stortings Forhandlinger, 1903-4, V, dokument nr. 37, pp. 3-4. Definitely on April 10, 1905. Nobelstiftelsens Grundstadgar (1924), pp. 2628; Stortings Forhandlinger, 1905-6, V, dokument nr. 53, pp. 4-5. For a translation see Appendix B. There is a summarizing pamphlet in English entitled The Nobel Peace Prize (n.p., n.d.), pp. 4-8. 18

160

PLANS FOR A NOBEL

INSTITUTE

the planners had talked. And, since what became reality squared so inadequately with early plans and dreams, it is small wonder that the earlier aspirations lingered on and came to expression, once in a while, in later years. Thus, when Professor W. C. Br0gger ( 1 8 5 1 — ) in 1904 pleaded for the organization of a new foundation for advanced research to centralize Norway's life of scholarship, 19 his request obviously bore traces of the earlier discussion about an international peace Institute. He suggested that the academy he had in mind might cooperate closely with the new Nobel Institute. The letter's Statutes certainly did not exclude the gradual development of a staff of well-paid s p e c i a l i s t s w o r k i n g in the fields g e r m a n e to its m a j o r

interest. The best talents would have to be secured regardless of nationality. Even if cooperation with such an academy proved difficult to arrange, said Br0gger, the establishment of so scholarly an undertaking as the Institute had possibilities of becoming a source of lasting benefit to Norwegian culture in general. Incidentally, it may be noted that Br0gger proposed that there should be in his academy twenty positions, four of them at the disposal of the Nobel Committee. Hopes for a more ambitious Institute were especially vocal in 1907. In the early summer of that year, there was contributed an article on the subject to an American magazine, 20 which, because it originated with the Secretary of the Nobel Committee, may possibly have embodied certain semi-official aspirations. After explaining how the Institute had begun to expand some of its activities within the resources at its command, Secretary Lange indicated something of its future possibilities. It would, he said, aim at being " a peace laboratory, a breeding-place of ideas and plans for the improvement and development of international relations." It must, of course, subsidize some re1 8 W. C. Br0gger, " E t norsk Videnskabsakademi," Aftenposten, 1904, Nos. 205. 207, 211, 221. 2 0 Chr. L. Lange, "The Future of the Norwegian Nobel Institute," The Independent, Vol. LXII, May 9, 1907, pp. 1060-64.

PLANS FOR A NOBEL I N S T I T U T E

161

search; science and research would share with imagination and enthusiasm in the pioneer work of preparing the international organization of the future. When more ample means became available, scholarships might be instituted and perhaps also a special school created for the teaching of the "science" of peace. The Institute, thought Lange, might well undertake to perform one other function which would fill a serious gap in the present machinery of international cooperation. As now constituted, that machinery dealt only with the law of states, that is, with international law. But there was no law to take care of the claims of subject peoples within states—of colonial populations or of subject nationalities. Some institution of independent character was needed to deal with questions not suitable for adjudication at The Hague. Naturally the verdicts of "this jury" would have behind them only moral sanction. The Nobel Institute, admitted Lange, could not undertake such a function, at the time of writing, for lack of means; in fact it would perhaps be difficult ever to get a Nobel Committee that was chosen by a national assembly to go forward with such an undertaking. Later in the year another contribution 21 proposed to remedy the Institute's lack of means by drawing on the prize money. The Statutes provided that a prize might be granted as infrequently as once every five years. So many persons had now received the Peace Prize, observed this contributor, that it was becoming increasingly difficult to make the choice. Why not, then, save as much of the money as possible for a decade? Only two prizes need be granted in that period, and the money from the eight undistributed prizes could be saved and applied to the launching at Christiania of "A Learned Institute for International Law and Arbitration." A favorable beginning had been made in the present Institute; it had a good location and possessed the nucleus of a good library. Beyond this, it should certainly be possible to hire younger men, at 12,000 francs a year, 21

"Nobel-Premi erne og Fredseagen," Morgenbladet,

Dec. 12, 1907.

162

P L A N S FOR A NOBEL

INSTITUTE

to study international law and arbitration and to edit works on these subjects. Such an academy at Christiania could do the research for the International Peace Bureau at Berne and for the Court of Arbitration at The Hague. In conjunction with these two, the enlarged Institute would be "the third hinge on the door which leads in to the establishment of lasting peace among the peoples." If the policy of accumulating the prize money were to start at once, there would by 1 9 1 8 be a fund large enough for future running expenses and future expansion. The first consideration would be to induce the Storting to favor a cessation in the parade of annual awards of the Peace Prize. No such policy as that here proposed was embarked upon. But about a decade later, in the midst of the War, some of the hopes for a larger Institute came to public expression again. In 1915 Professor Anathon Aall ( 1 8 6 7 — ) proposed to omit the prize awards for a few years and so build up a capital fund of 1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 kroner with which the Institute would be able to give its major attention to Nobel's primary aim—the increased fraternization of peoples.22 His suggestion bore certain obvious resemblances to the proposal made in 1907. In 1917 Fredrik Stang outlined a project to help reknit the bonds of culture sundered by the War. 23 A press comment which reëchoed Stang's proposal suggested that the Nobel Institute might transform itself into "an international seat" for the study of international law and politics.24 In like spirit, Lange later pointed out how the Institute might collaborate with a section of the University faculty to form a first-class School of Politics.25 We have now proceeded far enough with our exposition to show that the hopes for, and the dreams of, a great international 22 Anathon Aall, "Om Fsedrelandsf0lelse og den verdensmenneskelige Bevissthet," Samtiden, Vol. XXVI, pp. 205-20. 2 3 Cf. infra, pp. 283-84. 2 4 "Professor Stangs Foredrag," Tidens Tegn, July 2, 1917. 2 5 Chr. L. Lange, "Demokratiets Krise," Samtiden, Vol. XXXVIII, pp. 617-18.

PLANS FOR A NOBEL I N S T I T U T E

163

Institute of Peace at Christiania were prolonged after the Nobel Committee's decision in 1903 to begin with an Institute of limited scope. We tum next to see something of the various activities which mark the Institute that actually came to function.

XII

THE INSTITUTE IN ITS ADVISORY CAPACITY B E F O R E we speak of the activities of the Institute, we may say a word about its working quarters and facilities. At first the Nobel Committee occupied a floor in a building at Victoria Terrasse No. 4, but it gave thought from time to time to the matter of more suitable quarters. In November, 1903, taking advantage of the low real-estate values lingering after a severe business crisis in 1899, it purchased a site and building at Drammensvei No. 19, located in a fashionable section just beyond the southwest corner of the Queen's Park, to the rear of the Royal Palace. The title to the property was transferred to the Nobel Foundation at Stockholm, but the arrangements provided that the property was reserved for the use of the Norwegian Nobel Committee and its future Institute.1 The structure thus acquired was subjected to a thoroughgoing renovation that was not completed until 1905. The changes evoked criticism in certain quarters; this would be a matter of no moment to us if it did not indicate that the undertaking was regarded as a public venture upon which anyone might freely comment. Part of the comment was merely aesthetic in character, 2 but some had a political turn about it. The interior lighting effects were bad, complained one observer, intimating with a touch of irony that the architect may have wanted to emphasize that the outlook for peace was then (at the time of the RussoJapanese War) rather dark. 3 If such was his intention, the R. Moe, Le Prix Nobel de la paix et Γ Institut Nobel norvégien, Vol. I, p. 94. Forposten, Jan. 24, 1905 ; 0rebladet, Nov. 28, 1904; cf. issues of Nov. 30 and Dec. 1. 3 0rebladet, April 18, 1905. 1

2

T H E I N S T I T U T E AS ADVISER

165

comment went on, he had succeeded admirably, for a sad, heavy, grief-worn countenance, suggesting something prisonlike, had been imparted to "the house of peace." According to a pun that went the rounds, what had previously been a "noble" house had now been made over into the "Nobel" House.4 However, the more substantial press was either non-committal on the subject or definitely commendatory.5 The interior of the building and its appointments strike the visitor as severe rather than ornamental; the decorative effects impart a sense of stolidity rather than of grace. The ground floor is used for miscellaneous purposes. On the second and third floors are the library quarters, the offices of the Nobel Committee and of the Institute personnel, and the offices of The Institute of Comparative Culture, which will be discussed later. The meeting room of the Nobel Committee is hung with portraits of prize winners and of former members of the Committee. A general assembly hall on the third floor, seating some 240 persons, suggests in the motif of its decoration, appropriately enough, a quality of chasteness. In this hall are also two bronze busts. One, of Nobel, by the Swedish sculptor Lindberg, was given to the Committee by the Nobel family in 1912; the other, of j0rgen L0vland, is by the Norwegian sculptor Laerum. A bust of Nobel by the remarkable sculptor Vigeland was formerly placed in this hall, but now stands on a pedestal in the midst of a small plot of lawn at the front of the building. Just as one passes through the main entrance on the ground floor, one sees at the right a bronze bust of Fridtjof Nansen by Dagfin Werenskjold. The main assembly hall and some of the other rooms have occasionally been rented for meetings to organizations which have no permanent quarters,® especially to such * Forposten, Jan. 24, 1905. 5 Morgenbladet, July 5, 1905; Dagbladet, July 6, 1905; Norske Intelligenssedler, July 6, 1905; Social-Demokraten, July 6, 1905; Verdens Gang, July 18, 1905. 8 Cf. Aftenposten, Feb. 6, 1909 (Nos. 73, 74) ; Kristiania Dagsavis [-Avisen], April 22, 1909.

166

T H E I N S T I T U T E AS

peace organizations as Ν orges Fredsforbund. THE

LIBRARY

OF

ADVISER

Fredsforening

THE

and

Nordisk

INSTITUTE

Even before it had made a final decision upon the kind of an Institute it would have, the Nobel Committee had naturally begun to provide itself with books and literature, since some kind of a library would form part of any Institute service. Reserving 30,000 kroner of its funds for 1901 and 25,000 of those for 1902 to begin a collection of materials, the Committee on December 13, 1902, adopted a few regulations to govern its growing library.

These regulations contemplated a comprehensive library, covering the fields of pacifist literature, international law, modern history, political science, and political economy. The collection was to be administered by the Secretary of the Nobel Committee.7 With the passing of the years, the collection has grown until it now possesses in the neighborhood of 47,000 volumes. The section on pacifist literature is naturally very complete.8 Adequate also are the sections on history and biography since 1880, which include much material on nationalism, war origins, and like subjects. In the field of political economy there is not a little to be had on the subject of free trade, and there is a generous amount of material on social politics and socialism. A relatively large assortment of current periodicals, learned journals, and newspapers—both American and European—reach the library regularly. The resources of the library are accessible to the public. A general reading room is provided on the second floor of the Institute building, which, though not prepared to accommodate any large body of readers, perhaps not more than twenty-five " Cf. R. Moe, op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 93, 100. Cf. Nobel Institute, Catalogue de la bibliothèque tome I, Littérature pacifiste (Christiania, 1912). 8

de dnstitut

Nobel

norvégien,

T H E I N S T I T U T E AS A D V I S E R

167

or thirty, is nevertheless very substantially appointed. Since 1903, the librarian in charge has been Olaf Selmer-Anderssen, who in the early twenties served a year with the library then being established for the International Labor Office at Geneva. THE

INSTITUTE

COUNSELLORS

The task of deciding who is most worthy of the Peace Prize in any particular year calls for a perspective almost Olympian. An eye must be kept on the growth of peace sentiment in all countries, and particular attention must be given to individuals to whom it may be chiefly credited. And each year, when the choice narrows down to a few candidates, the backgrounds of these individuals have to be investigated and their particular contributions to the peace cause made evident in order to furnish a better basis for the ultimate decision. It is in connection with these detailed investigations that the Committee has most need of specialized advice. Not long after it had decided upon an Institute of limited scope, the Committee took steps to establish an advisory service. It appointed to the staff of the Institute, as of May 1, 1904, three advisers or counsellors that bear the title of konsulenter." There was to be one in political history, one in political economy (sociology), and one in international law. The annual stipend was to be 1,200 kroner and the appointment for an indefinite period, though terminable on six months' notice. Definite threeyear terms were instituted as of July 1, 1928,10 but these were arranged, as of January 1, 1935, so as to expire one each year, in rotation.11 The counsellors take their instructions from the Nobel Committee. Besides attending to their own specialties—they hold other positions—the counsellors offer general advice to the » Stortings Forhandlinger, 1904-5, V, dokument 10 Ibid., 1929, V, dokument nr. 8. 11 Ibid., 1935, V , dokument nr. 6.

nr. 58, pp. 2-3.

168

T H E I N S T I T U T E AS

ADVISER

Committee, help to build up the library, and, in particular, gather information and make reports about the candidates for the Peace Prize. The procedure is more or less regularized. Candidates to be seriously considered become the subject of special studies and reports by the counsellors and the Director of the Institute. The latter reports on a distinctly larger number of candidates, in the aggregate, than any one of the counsellors. The reports are assembled and edited by the Director and printed for the confidential use of the Committee members.12 There has been some thought of making these reports—that is, those for the early years—available to students, but the balance of opinion, perhaps wisely, has so far been against this move.13 No doubt they would throw additional light upon "the Norwegian background," but the publication of their contents might, it must be acknowledged, arouse needless animosities among friends and supporters of candidates, dead as well as living. As it is, the primary value of the reports lies in their subjective and outspoken character, and this virtue might easily be dissipated should present counsellors see the reports of their predecessors divulged. If the reader is to get any satisfactory idea of the personnel which serves the Committee in this advisory capacity, it will be necessary to turn in the following pages to some biographical data. COUNSELLORS

IN

POLITICAL

HISTORY

Those who have served as counsellors in political history, with their years of service, are: Halvdan Koht (1904-1913) whose 1 2 They are publicly listed, for the first time, in 1934, in the annual Ârskatcdog over Norsk Literatur, appearing under the key word Nobelkomite as Redegjfrelse for Nobels Fredspris, X X X I V (Oslo, 1934, konfidentielt). 1 3 In hie research experience the present writer has known no more tantalizing moment than the one, on a bright summer day in 1934, when he was permitted to view at arm's length the exteriors of the bound copies of these counsellors' reports.

THE I N S T I T U T E AS ADVISER

169

career we have discussed above," Edvard Bull (1914-1918) and Jacob S. Worm-Müller (1919—). Edvard Bull (1881-1932) in the pre-War period devoted himself to historical studies with a singularity of purpose somewhat in contrast with his later career. His interest lay partly in the social and economic background of political history, and partly in local history. Toward the close of the War he became professor of history at the University, and from 1928 until his death he served as editor of Historisk Tidsskrift, the organ of the Norwegian Historical Society. He was likewise active in several other important editorial capacities. Bull was an undoubted friend of peace. During the World War—his term as counsellor at the Institute coincided with the great conflict—he was anxious to see his country kept out of the great struggle. He was ready to relinquish some of the traditional claims of neutrality, if that were necessary, in order to avoid the wholesale sacrifice of his country's manhood, or in order to protect what might after all prove to be but an ineffectively defended neutrality, such as Belgium's.15 After the Russian Revolution Bull gave considerable attention to politics. Sympathetic with the cause of social democracy and anxious to give the local labor movement a more radical policy, he espoused Communism, though his was a sort of national Communism rather than the Moscow-directed variety. When the Norwegian Labor party assumed Cabinet responsibility for a few days in 1928, Bull served as Minister of Foreign Affairs. His untimely death was a serious loss to the Labor party as well as to Norwegian historical scholarship. Jacob Stenersen Worm-Müller (1884—) became familiar with several foreign shores at an early age. In student days, during the Boer War, he sailed on an uncle's ship in the South 14 15

Supra, pp. 63-69. E. Bull, "Kriga- og Fredsproblemer," Samtiden,

Vol. XXVII, pp. 564-65.

170

T H E I N S T I T U T E AS

ADVISER

African trade. Developing a sympathy for the Boers, he championed their cause at protest meetings and helped to draft petitions and addresses in their favor. He wrote a book about De Wet, who had become his hero. In 1902 he had the deep satisfaction of visiting former President Kruger at Utrecht, and of meeting Botha, De Wet, and others at The Hague. Meanwhile, he had written several sketches and accounts of South African life. His interest in this part of the world has never quite left him. It would not be too much to say that the temper of his life was seriously affected by the Boer War. Because of it, he came to take a lively interest in national defense and later entered a military academy. He joined the reserve and ranked second in command of a unit in the critical year 1905. Medicine was the traditional calling of the family, but Worm-Miiller decided, partly because of his South African experiences, to become an historian. A long illness interrupted his plans, yet gave him an opportunity to travel extensively in Italy, Spain, Morocco, and the Canaries, and to spend a year in the Netherlands. His studies were resumed and later continued on visits to Copenhagen, Rome, Paris, and Berlin. He saw French nationalism at fever heat in Paris during the Agadir crisis, and he heard German students and professors preaching Weltmacht at Berlin during the World War. Later he visited France and Alsace, and what he saw of the western battlefields strengthened in him a growing aversion to modern war and its consequences. Worm-Müller's sympathies during the War were with the Entente. In domestic politics, he has been a confirmed supporter of the Left. 16 He has written at length of the problems of neutrality and war as these affected his own country during the Napoleonic wars and after.17 Questions regarding the 1« Cf. Samtiden, Vol. XLIV, pp. « 8 - 4 2 . 1 7 Cf. his Norge gjennem Njdsaarene (Christiania, 1918) ; Christiania efter Napoleonskrigene (Christiania, 1922).

og

Krisen

T H E I N S T I T U T E AS A D V I S E R

171

shipping industry have also interested him, and he undertook in 1925 to edit a standard work of several volumes on the history of Norwegian shipping from early days to modern times.18 In 1925, also, he became editor of his country's foremost periodical, Samtiden—a medium refreshingly catholic in the range of its interests and patterned after the heavier reviews in the larger Western capitals. In the spring of 1926 Worm-Miiller visited the United States and Canada. On several occasions he accompanied Norway's delegation to the sessions of the League of Nations Assembly. COUNSELLORS IN POLITICAL ECONOMY

The Institute's counsellors in political economy (sociology) have been: Ebbe Hertzberg (1904-5), Κ. V. Hammer (190622) and Wilhelm Keilhau ( 1 9 2 3 — ) . When Ebbe Carsten Horneman Hertzberg (1847-1912) began what was to prove a short term as counsellor at the Institute, he had long been interested in questions of tariff policy, rural cooperation, and legal and constitutional history. He was professor of political economy and statistics at the University and in 1884 he had been a member of the Schweigaard ministry—the "April Ministry" which undertook to "cover" the Conservative and royal retreat after the great parliamentary victory of the Left. Hertzberg in due course served on several tariff commissions, eventually as chairman. For decades he was a convinced free trader, but by the turn of the century he had reluctantly shifted to the protectionist position, confessing that when all other states deserted free trade it was a matter of national self-preservation to do likewise. Hertzberg left the Institute in 1906 to join the Royal Archives. His successor, Karl Vilhelm Hammer (1860-1927), also was an archivist, and undertook after 1905 to organize the archives 18

Den norske

1925-).

Sj#fartshistorie,

fra

de

adiste

Tider

til vore Dage

(Oslo,

172

T H E I N S T I T U T E AS

ADVISER

of Norway's new Department of Foreign Affairs. At the outset of his career, he was better known as a publicist and compiler. He had specialized in law and economics, and for a time he was connected with some of the country's leading dailies, serving also as a local representative of several large European papers and of the Associated Press. He had a faculty, which he employed to good advantage in his many contributions to encyclopedias and works of reference, for keeping large masses of detailed facts in order. The present counsellor in political economy, Wilhelm Christian Keilhau ( 1 8 8 8 — ) has been active in several fields. Since he has taken a more active part in the popular phases of peace work than have the other counsellors, we may devote a little more space to his activities. Keilhau's professional interests have been academic. Law and political economy were his formal specialties in student days, but he also read a good deal in history and has written much in several fields. In economics he has discussed ground rent, government regulation of concessions to corporations, and the currency question. In recent years, history has claimed much of his attention. He wrote the account of Norway in the Carnegie Endowment's elaborate Economic and Social History of the World War, as well as the three final volumes of a cooperative history of Norway 18 which has had a phenomenal success from the standpoint of sales. He is, moreover, an active contributor to the periodical literature of the day. Keilhau is, in the best sense of the phrase, master of the art of popularization. His sparkling, crackling style lends a certain sharply limned quality to his inquiries into broad and obscure social and economic factors. At the other extreme, his analyses of individual psychology are equally discerning in exposing partially hidden springs of action behind human conduct. Though well grounded in the materialist discipline, he 19

E. Bull et al., Det norske folks Liv og Historie gjennem

Tidene, V0I9. VIII-X.

THE I N S T I T U T E AS A D V I S E R

173

is fully cognizant of the rôle played in individual life by the subconscious, the mystic, and the spiritual.20 In biography, his best efforts have been incorporated in a series of sketches of certain compatriots that have recently been prominent in public life. 21 Keilhau's political sympathies can best be described as liberal. But his has been far from a laissez-faire liberalism, begging that the individual be left unhampered in his eagerness to exploit lucrative natural resources or the less fortunately placed among his fellow men. Keilhau's liberalism has been humanitarian and democratic, favoring heavy taxes on unearned incomes and broad programs of social insurance. Convinced that individual losses when unmerited should be shared by all, just as individual gains when unmerited should be used for the benefit of all, he has refused to recognize any prior right of "irresponsible capital." 22 In terms that have recently been popularized in American politics, his position is considerably "left of center," but in the Scandinavian setting it is better described as intermediate between the extremes of conservatism and aggressive socialism. Keilhau's interests were originally more militant than pacific. His boyhood was one of ill health, and he suffered a year's invalidism, but in student days he became much interested in military life. He helped to form a boys' rifle corps in the stirring year 1905 ; two years later he wrote in favor of military training in the schools. After the separation from Sweden he remained sensitive on matters of national security,23 and he considered the Integrity Treaty of 1907, with its guarantee by the Great Powers, rather unfortunate in phraseology as well 20

W. Keilhau, "Matérialisme og Spiritualisme," Samtiden, Vol. XXXI, pp. 508-24. 21 Published at intervals in Samtiden during and since the War. 22 W. Keilhau, "Vort nationale Demokrati," Samtiden, Vol. XXIII, p. 120; "Frihet, Likhet, Brorskap—og norsk Politik," Samtiden, Vol. XXIV, p. 138. 23 Cf. Samtiden, Vol. XXVIII, p. 79.

174

THE INSTITUTE

AS

ADVISER

as in general effect. 24 Keilhau was early interested in aviation. In 1913 he helped to get under way a national subscription to provide Norway with an air-force unit, and he was the first passenger to fly in the plane with which Tryggve Gran in 1914 had made his epochal flight over the North Sea. In 1 9 1 8 he sought to organize a large aviation manufacturing company, but this venture failed a few years later. The outbreak of the World War was no surprise to Keilhau. Convinced that catastrophe was on the way, he traveled about in 1913 to have a last look at pre-War Europe, and sought to join with a few friends in launching a periodical to bear some such title as " T h e Coming W a r . " After the War actually had arrived, a few weeks' service as a war correspondent on the western front, during the Christmas season of 1914-15, cauterized whatever was left of his earlier enthusiasm for things military. Henceforth he became an eager advocate of peace. As president of the Student's Union in 1915, he was in charge of the welcome to the members of the Ford peace expedition, which was none too well received in some other parts. At the close of the War, Keilhau was instrumental in organizing a Norwegian branch of the Union of League of Nations Associations. He was active in the Christiania local of Norway's Peace Union, and since 1 9 2 3 he has been vice-president of the national organization. In 1923, also, he became a counsellor at the Nobel Institute, and from 1928 to 1934 he was, in addition, on its staff as a lecturer. COUNSELLORS IN INTERNATIONAL

LAW

The counsellors in international law have been: N. Gjelsvik (1904-7),

Mikael

H. Lie

(1908-20)

and

Frede

Castberg

(1921—). 24 ibid., Vol. XXIII, p. 110; E. Bull et al., Det norske gjennem Tidene, Vol. X, pp. 497-98.

folks

Liv og

Historie

THE INSTITUTE AS ADVISER

175

Nilolaus Matias Gjelsvik ( 1 8 6 6 — ) was born of peasant stock in the middle coastal region of western Norway. Two interests in particular have engaged his attention : the landsmaal, of which he has been one of the most persistent champions, and the law, in which he has proven himself a facile expositor and textbook writer. In the course of his studies he has given no little attention to international law. He became professor of jurisprudence at the University in 1906, and thereupon discontinued his relatively short term as counsellor at the Nobel Institute. As an alternate, he took Bj0rnson's place on the Committee in 1904, while the latter was on a leave of absence. Generally speaking, Gjelsvik's impulses have been more bellicose than pacific. As a student he was much interested in the flag question, and in 1905 he favored a republic. In that fateful year, also, he served with the secretariat of the Norwegian delegation at K a r l s t a d ; the victory registered for the arbitration principle in the ensuing treaty seemed to him a humiliation and a dishonor to his country. Small wonder that henceforth there were some who felt that these and similar sentiments harmonized ill with his connections with a peace institute. 25 He was convinced during the War that a small state like Norway ought to arm and arm heavily. 28 His sympathies, if not actively pro-German, were at any rate definitely antiEntente. A victory for the Entente, he insisted, would deliver the world over to the British and American imperialisms. Only a stalemate offered any hope for future peace; only a draw offered any prospect of a chance to fashion a federation of states in which the rights of small nations could be assured. 2 7 Mikael Str0m Henriksen Lie ( 1 8 7 3 - 1 9 2 6 ) devoted himself Dagsposten, J u n e 8, 1906. N. Gjelsvik, " N o g e n Betragtninger i Anledning av K r i g e n , " Samtiden, Vol. X X V , p. 468. « Cf. Syn og Segn, Vol. X X ( 1 9 1 4 ) , pp. 310-18; Vol. X X I I I ( 1 9 1 7 ) , pp. 41-46, 2 3 0 4 0 , 289-309, 413-23, 433-50; Vol. X X V ( 1 9 1 9 ) , pp. 292 96, 305-18. 25

26

176

THE

INSTITUTE

AS

ADVISER

rather specifically to questions of legal and constitutional history and practice

28

and to international law. He was a Fellow

and Instructor in jurisprudence at the University and published several studies on international questions: for example, one on the relations of the Great Powers and the small states and another on problems of law and peace. He attended the Peace Conference in Paris in 1919 and was a member of the early Norwegian delegations to the League Assembly at Geneva. Like his predecessor, the present counsellor in international law, Frede Castberg

(1893—),

has confined his attention

largely to constitutional history and international law,29 though he has also published accounts of wider progress being made in the field of international cooperation.30 In addition to being counsellor at the Institute—his present term will end in 1939— Castberg also serves as counsellor on international law at the Department of Foreign Affairs, a position he has occupied since 1922. In 1931 and again in 1933 he was visiting professor at the Academy of International Law at The Hague. Since 1928 he has been professor of jurisprudence at the University in Oslo. In connection with Castberg, particularly, it seems appropriate to point out that the present counsellors of the Institute are men in early middle age. They represent the generation which, in belligerent countries, was called upon, often without warning, to bear the burdens of the World War. It is that generation more than any other which has a right to be interested in peace and the prospect of avoiding, if possible, another catastrophe. We have devoted more attention to the counsellors than might have been expected, partly to make it clear to the reader that, Cf. his " K r i g e n og Forfatningslivet," Samtiden, Vol. X X V I I I , pp. 584-99. Cf. his Grunnlovens Forbud mot à gi Lover tilbakevirkende Kraft (Christiania, 1920) ; Norges Statsforfatning (2 vols., Oslo, 1935) ; " L ' E x c è s de pouvoir dans la justice internationale," Académie de droit international, Recueil des Cours, Vol. X X X V (1931, I ) , pp. 353472. Not infrequently he is a contributor to Nordisk Tidsskrift for international Ret. 30 Mellemfolkelig Rettspleie (Oslo, 1925); Rettstenkning og Fredspolitikk (Oslo, 1928). 28

29

T H E I N S T I T U T E AS A D V I S E R

177

as the Institute is now organized, there is the assurance that those candidacies for the Peace Prize which deserve to be seriously considered will have the benefit of specialized attention before the final decisions are made by the Nobel Committee itself. T H E DIRECTOR O F T H E I N S T I T U T E : RAGNVALD MOE

The counsellors, specialists though they are in their respective fields, give only a portion of their time to the Institute. There is another official, however, who gives continuous and full-time attention to the affairs of the Institute and the Committee—the Secretary of the Committee, who is also in charge of the routine affairs of the Institute. His relations with the latter were formally placed on a more definite basis in 1928, when he was given the title Director of the Institute. The present Director, Ragnvald Moe ( 1 8 7 3 — ) , came from Bergen in the western part of the country. From 1904 to 1909 he was an assistant at the University Library and since 1910 he has served the Nobel Committee as its Secretary. As a student his interest ran to the Romance languages. In the course of time he developed more than a passing sympathy for French culture. He travelled extensively and has visited a goodly number of the countries of Europe. From time to time Moe has seen fit, quite in conformity with his official position, to appear in the press as an apologist for the peace cause. Well grounded in the liberal tradition, he has observed peace endeavors from a realistic point of view. In pre-War days he paid his respects both to those pacifists who rest their enthusiasm for peace primarily on a religious basis, and to socialists who base theirs on a certain inflexible political philosophy. 31 He had scant sympathy with the demand that governments should without more ado discard their respective 31 R. Moe, "Den internationale Fredsbevsegelse og den Italiensk-Tyrkiske Krig," ¿ tmtiden, Vol. ΧΧΙΠ, pp. 459-60.

178

T H E I N S T I T U T E AS

ADVISER

armaments, or with the refusal of the conscientious objectors to do any military service. Instead he was prone to call to mind the claims that could be made in the name of nationality (though without approving nationalist ideologies as such), and he insisted that it was every man's duty to bear his share of military burdens and fight for his country if necessary. The point at which to begin was the practice of arbitration, and around its banner peace advocates must gather.32 These were not called upon by some miracle or other to force the Great Powers to disarm. The work for peace did not begin with, but found its consummation in, disarmament. The advocates of peace, Moe insisted, must labor to strengthen the ideals and the practice of international democracy as expressed in a principle like arbitration. Social consciousness was the product of a thousand interrelated factors, all acting on one another, and peace workers must labor to make that consciousness more and more international. Such was the aim being promoted, for instance, by the Inter-Parliamentary Union and by the distributions of the Nobel Peace Prize. Moe's attitude toward the peace cause was, of course, deeply colored by that liberal humanitarian current which ran so strong at the close of the century. He shared with the liberal humanitarians a fundamental faith in democracy, a democracy that was to prevail in an economic as well as in a political and in an international sense. Just as true democracy alone can give free play to the relations of individuals, so only principles of democracy and equality in the relations between states can assure all peoples a chance to develop their potentialities, free of the threatening power of any nearby imperialisms. A measure of democracy was almost indispensable to peace, as Moe saw it. Those who argued that high finance and concentrated 32 R. Moe, Tale ved den europceiske Christian Endeavor Kongres's Demonstrationsmfite for Fred og Voldgift i Calmeyergatens Missionshus, 22de Juli, 1912, Det store Fredsdemonstrations Mpte (n.p., n.d.), p. 169.

T H E I N S T I T U T E AS ADVISER

179

capital might bring about peace by controlling and withholding the monetary resources needed for war overlooked, said Moe, that the large aggregates of capital were not always free in time of crisis to act as they chose and in ordinary times gave sustained support to the protective tariff system, which produced so much international friction." The liberal traditions of the earlier years have retained their hold upon Moe in the post-War period. He has remained convinced that the class struggle within a society may be as serious a threat to peace as is rivalry on the international plane, and he has been more keenly aware than ever of how important for a better world order is the formulation of a peace psychology among the masses of men." At the beginning of the thirties he undertook to publish a comprehensive two-volume study (of which only one volume has yet appeared) of the peace movement in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.38 His plan is to carry the story well down to the origins of the Covenant of the League of Nations, making abundantly clear how Nobel's donation and the work of the Storting's Nobel Committee and its Institute fit into the broader international peace movement. In view of Director Moe's pivotal position as Secretary of the Committee and head of the Institute, which gives him ready access to all the sources, his study when completed may be accepted as a definitive work. 83

R. Moe, "Fredspolitik," Dagblaiet, Dec. 31, 1910. R. Moe, "Internasjonal og naejonal Fred," Tidens Tegn, Nov. 13, 1933, PP. 1, 12. " R. Moe, Le Prix Nobel de la paix et rinstitut Nobel norvégien (Oslo, 1932—). 34

XIII DIRECT S U P P O R T PEACE

OF

THE

CAUSE

THOUGH it was established in the first instance to serve the Nobel Committee in an advisory capacity, the Institute when finally constituted was given a second commission more or less auxiliary to the first. According to the Statutes, it was to work also for the promotion of mutual knowledge and respect, and the furtherance of peaceful intercourse, justice, and brotherhood among peoples. At first thought one wonders how the Committee, whose duty it is to distribute the Peace Prize, could authorize its Institute to lend aid to educational and propagandist work without an improper diversion of funds intended for the Prize. But that there has been no usurpation of authority we may see from a brief consideration of the Committee's finances.1 FINANCES

OF

THE

NORWEGIAN

NOBEL

AGENCIES

The bulk of Nobel's estate, as it was turned over to the Nobel Foundation in Stockholm, formed the core of the Foundation's resources, known as the Principal Fund. The Fund's net income, after one-tenth has been added to the principal, is divided in two unequal parts, of one-fourth and three-fourths respectively. 1 R. Moe, Le Prix Nobel de la paix et l'Institut Nobel norvégien. Vol. I, p p . 46-52, 72-73, 101-3, summarizes s o m e of t h e financial d a t a which may be followed in g r e a t e r detail in t h e a n n u a l r e p o r t s of t h e Nobel Committee in Stortings Forhandlinger, P a r t V. T h e r e p o r t s have usually been d r a w n u p in t h e late winter or early spring when the a n n u a l financial s t a t e m e n t of t h e Nobel F o u n d a t i o n at Stockholm is available. But since t h e S t o r t i n g C o m m i t t e e ' s report for 1936 was subm i t t e d in J a n u a r y of 1937 ( a n early report was in d e m a n d , mainly, it may be i n f e r r e d , because of the c h a n g e s associated with t h e c a n d i d a c y of Von Ossietzky) t h e financial section of it had to be d e f e r r e d until later, and t h e l a t t e r has not b e e n available to t h e present w r i t e r .

S U P P O R T OF THE PEACE CAUSE

181

The larger part is available each year for the five prizes but the remaining fourth, according to Article Thirteen of the Statutes, is retained for the expenses of the prize-granting bodies, and among their expenses are the costs of operating the Institutes. Since there are five prizes, it follows that one-fifth of the fourth reserved for expenses is available for the Storting's Nobel Committee. The Statute also provides that what is not used for any one year's expense is to be set aside for future needs. The money so saved constitutes a Reserve Fund. By January 1, 1936, the Norwegian Nobel Institute's Reserve Fund amounted to 236,343.77 kroner. These arrangements, it should be remembered, are not matters subject to the discretion of the Storting's Nobel Committee, but are fixed in the basic Statutes of the Foundation at Stockholm. The Norwegian Committee has the disposal of two other funds, namely an Organization Fund and a Special Fund. When the Nobel Foundation was being erected, a preliminary regulation set aside 1,500,000 kroner from the estate, to be used by the four prize-awarding units to cover the expenses of organizing institutes. One-fifth of this, or 300,000 kroner, was therefore available for the establishment of the Norwegian Nobel Institute. But this sum was not wholly expended in the purchase of the Institute building or in its renovation. The remainder, or, rather, a large portion of it, retained its identity as the Organization Fund; augmented by interest yields and tax rebates it amounted on January 1, 1936 to 430,112.96 kroner. The Special Fund is the most interesting of the accounts, and the one of most concern to us here. A part of the basic sum of the Organization Fund that remained after the purchase and renovation of the Institute's building, amounting to 20,000 kroner, was set aside by the Nobel Committee, in April, 1906, as a Special Fund for the Institute. This fund has grown phenomenally, primarily through the operation of Article Five in the basic Statutes, which provided that if a prize was reserved

182

S U P P O R T OF THE PEACE CAUSE

one year and then was not employed for an award the year following, the prize money should be added to the Principal Fund of the Foundation, or—and this is the passage to note here— two-thirds of it might, if the prize-awarding body so decided by a four-fifths vote, be added to the awarding section's Special Fund. (This is in accordance with an amendment of November, 1934; previously the entire sum could be added to the Special Fund by a three-fourths vote.) The Storting's Nobel Committee has added undistributed prize money to its Special Fund on a number of occasions, namely in the case of the prizes for 1914, 1915, 1916, 1918, 1923, 1924, 1928, and 1932. By January 1, 1936 the Special Fund amounted to 1,171,752.70 kroner. The unexpended sums of interest on this fund had by 1936 attained the sum of 199,238.43 kroner. It is these interest sums which are available for the promotion, by means other than the periodic grant of the Peace Prize, of the broader aims that Nobel had in mind. The Committee has thus been able to extend financial help to a number of activities, all seeking to promote the cause of peace. To these we may next turn, prefacing our discussion with a remark about the monetary unit employed, the krone. In the post-War period, with foreign exchanges much unsettled, there has been a certain discrepancy, often not very large, between the values of the Norwegian krone and the Swedish denomination of the same name. The latter has steadily been quoted somewhat higher than the former. Although both units are freely employed in the financial statements of the Storting's Nobel Committee, the figures cited here are uniformly to be taken as Norwegian kroner. A table to show the variety of grants has been arranged for the years 1931 to 1936, the latest figures available at the time of this writing, and is included in this volume.2 The main types of activities that have been aided 2 Appendix D. The record of these and earlier grants is to be found in the Committee's annual reports, published each year in Part V of the Stortings porhandlinger.

S U P P O R T OF T H E P E A C E CAUSE

183

by the Committee will be discussed in the paragraphs which follow, but the reader will understand that the grants mentioned do not form a complete list. PEACE PERIODICALS AIDED

One question of concern to the Committee, in the early years especially, was the extent to which it should sponsor or support some periodical that might advance the views the Peace Prize was intended to encourage. All the sections of the Foundation decided in 1904 to establish an annual publication, containing various data on the sections, summarizing their year's activities, and providing brief sketches of the current prize winners." But it was not exactly this sort of a publication that the Storting's Committee was debating. It considered seriously the feasibility of launching a medium completely its own, with the definite propagandist aim of working for the peace cause. We may discuss this plan to better advantage in connection with Bj0rnson's activities on the Committee,4 since the project was not so much the Committee's as it was Bj0rnson's. But in the mean time we may notice some cases in which the Committee came to the aid of media already established. During this early period—a time of doubt and indecision— the Committee advanced financial aid to two periodicals. In 1903, acting partly on the recommendation of Leo Mechelin of Finland and Frédéric Passy of France, it granted 10,000 kroner to the liberal and pacifist French weekly L'Européen (1901-6), which pleaded the cause of oppressed nationalities, devoting no little attention to Finland and sometimes touching on the Swedish-Norwegian question. In 1904 the Committee granted 2,000 kroner (renewed in 1905 and in 1906) to the Norwegian periodical Samtiden,5 on condition that it pay "consistent atten8

Les Prix Nobel en 1901— (Stockholm, 1904—). * Cf. infra, pp. 193-200. 5 Cf. supra, p. 171.

184

SUPPORT

OF T H E

PEACE

tion to the cause of peace and arbitration."

6

CAUSE The Committee was

making this grant, said the editor, Gerhard Gran, in appreciation of the fact that a periodical which worked for cultural enlightenment and progress also worked by that means for the promotion of the peace cause 7 —a revealing passage bringing pointedly to mind that late nineteenth-century optimism which assumed that modern progress in some way, more or less casual perhaps, was carrying the peace cause, along with other reforms, to final victory. The grants made to these two periodicals met with disfavor in some quarters, Swedish as well as Norwegian, there being those who feared the Committee might through this means be helping to fan the current anti-Russian agitation.8 Certain later subventions in this category were given to periodicals which were out and out peace organs. The chief recipient of such aid was Alfred H. Fried's Die

Friedens-WarteFrom

time to time, since 1910, sums ranging from 400 kroner early years to 3,000 kroner

in the

in the recent grants have been ex-

tended to this periodical. An advance of 500 kroner

in 1921

helped Norway's Peace Union defray the expenses of publishing its organ Folkefred.

Grants of 3,000 kroner

been made to Mellanfolkligt

samarbete

each have recently

("International Cooper-

ation"), a periodical issued in Stockholm. In the last half decade the Committee has been giving uninterrupted assistance also to a venture somewhat more academic than those previously mentioned, a recently launched Scandinavian periodical on international law.10

6 Stortings Forhandlinger, 1903-4, V, dokument nr. 37 ; 1904-5, V , dokument nr. 58, p. 4 ; 1905-6, V, dokument nr. 53, p. 6. 7 [ G . Gran], "1904," Samtiden, Vol. X V , p. 4. 8 Morgenbladet, Dec. 19, 1903; cf. L^vland's statement in the same day's evening edition, and "Norska Nobelkomittén och Fredsprismedlens Användanda," Aftonbladet (Stockholm), Sept. 2, 1905.

Cf. Aftenposten, Dec. 22, 1910. Nordisk Tidsskrijt for international (Copenhagen, 1930—). 9

10

Ret;

Acta

scandinavica

juris

gentium...

S U P P O R T OF THE PEACE CAUSE PEACE

SOCIETIES

AND

INDIVIDUALS

185

AIDED

The Committee and the Institute have extended their bounty also to organizations and institutions, with no direct thought of promoting any particular publication. In 1903 a grant of 500 kroner was given to the Norwegian section of the Women's World Union for International Concord. Grants of like character became more frequent during and after the World War. Various sums were advanced to the Scandinavian societies, Svenska Freds- och Skiljedomsföreningen, Svenska Fredsförbundet, Ν orges Fredsforening, and Dansk Fredsforening. Just after the War there were grants to the newly founded Nordisk Fredsforbund11 and to the Norwegian League of Nations Union. The academic section of the latter was allowed 1,200 kroner in 1930 to publish a booklet on the League of Nations,12 and in 1934 it received 1,000 kroner in order that it might be represented at a peace conference at Brussels. In 1922, 2,000 kroner were put at the disposal of a Norwegian Committee to help organize congresses on ethical culture—considered an activity that definitely promoted a sense of brotherhood among peoples. The Scandinavian branches of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom have been assisted (1926) as have also the Women's International Organizations (1932, 1934, 1936). A substantial grant was extended to the Institute of International Law (1931-32) in order to help cover expenses of an Institute meeting at Oslo. Now and then the International Peace Bureau at Geneva has had a grant, that in 1934 amounting to 5,000 kroner. In 1935 the Bureau of Education at Geneva received 4,000 kroner to carry on psychological investigations on the manner in which children of various ages and nationalities react to the reading of books on peace. Another venture that has been the recipient of several grants in the last half decade is the 11 12

Cf. supra, p. 53. Folkejorbundet: MM og Orgtmisasjon

(Oslo, 1931).

186

S U P P O R T OF THE P E A C E CAUSE

"Northern Folk High-School at Geneva," an undertaking that has sought to bring younger talents from Scandinavia to the League capital in order to give them a more intimate acquaintance with the League and its work.13 In 1934 the International Institute of Intellectual Cooperation received 5,000 kroner to facilitate the publication and dissemination of writings concerning peace and broadcasting. In certain cases the beneficiaries of the Committee have been individuals, persons working singlehandedly on some sector of the peace cause or enabled by the grant received to contribute more effectively than otherwise to some collective endeavor. In 1 9 1 5 Koht was a d v a n c e d 5 0 0 kroner

to attend a m e e t i n g at

Berne of the "Central Organization for a Durable Peace." The year before, the Institute's counsellor in international law, Mikael H. Lie, received 800 kroner to pursue studies of his specialty at Paris. A grant of similar size in 1931 enabled Carl Bonnevie to visit Russia and sound out Russian politicians on the peace cause. The same year Ole Just, a journalist, received 1,000 kroner to study the Court of International Justice at The Hague; in 1934 he was given 3,000 kroner to keep the public of the Northern countries informed on the work of the League of Nations. The Institute's counsellor in international law, Frede Castberg, was allowed 1,000 kroner in 1932 to study constitutional development in Germany, with special attention to its bearing on German foreign policy. In 1933 the head of Norway's Peace Union, 0 . F. Olden, was given a grant to visit the United States and study its peace movement. In 1935 Raestad was allotted 1,000 kroner to participate in the work of the Codification Commission of the Académie diplomatique internationale. Some of the activities subsidized have been quite academic 1 3 Cf. "Nordisk Folkeh0iskole i Genf?" Morgenbladet, Dec. 1, 1930, p. 3; u Et nordisk Studiehjem i Genf," ibid., 1931, No. 209, p. 7; "Nordisk Studiehjem i Genf," Aftenposten, July 8, 1931.

S U P P O R T OF T H E PEACE CAUSE

187

and specialized. In 1903 a grant of 3,000 kroner was voted for preliminary work on a survey of the Inter-Parliamentary Union's activities and results. In 1912 Thorvald Boye, a specialist in international law, later a Supreme Court Justice and since 1925 chairman of the Norwegian Association for International Law, was given 1,000 kroner toward the publication cost of a book on The Armed Neutrality Leagues.1* Approximately 3,000 kroner were advanced in 1920 to Charles Dupuis, the French scholar, in order to facilitate the publication of a work on the relation of the Great Powers to the smaller states." A like sum was advanced in 1928 to make available a new edition of a commentary on the League Covenant by the German scholars Walther Schiicking and Hans Wehberg.1® From 1934 to 1936 grants ranging from 2,400 to 3,000 kroner were given to Ludwig Quidde to prepare a work on the peace movement in Germany during the World War. The latter sum was advanced in 1934 to Karl Strupp, editor of Zeitschrift für Völkerrecht, to enable him to prepare a treatise on the work of the Permanent Court of International Justice. Some thought has been given also to larger ventures requiring the collaboration of several scholars, chiefly since the War. Thus, in 1921 the Committee voted 3,000 kroner to defray the expenses of preliminary work on a history of the World War to be written by neutrals. The intention was to have Nansen take charge of the project, and one of the contributors was to be Wilhelm Keilhau. Two grants of 3,000 kroner each have been advanced in recent years (1933, 1935) to an international commission for the publication of a bibliography of the peace cause. The Academy of Science in Oslo in 1936 was awarded 3,000 kroner in order to assist an international commission which is working on a Dictionary of International Law Terminology. 14

T. Boye, De vabnede Neutralitetsforbund (Christiania, 1912). Cf. his Le Droit des gens et les rapports des grandes puissances avec les autres états avant le pacte de la Société des Nations (Paris, 1921). 18 Die Satzung der Völkerbundes (3d ed., Berlin, 1931—). 15

188

S U P P O R T OF T H E PEACE C A U S E SPECIAL STUDIES ON PEACE AIDED: T H E

INSTITUTE

PUBLICATIONS

The Committee has undertaken also to be its own sponsor of special studies. In 1903, apparently on the initiative of Halvdan Koht, who was then a counsellor, it decided to publish a series of studies on problems of interest to the peace movement or on questions concerned with the juridical organization of international life. The series was named "Publications de l'Institut Nobel norvégien," and the studies prepared for it were to be submitted in one or another of the major European languages. In the hope that it might lend prestige to the series at the outset, it was planned to publish as the first number a study by the distinguished French jurist, Louis Renault, on the new Geneva Convention (1906) but this plan did not materialize.17 Actually the first volume to appear was Anton H. Raeder's UArbitrage international chez les Hellènes (1912). Others that have appeared are: Achille Loria, Les Bases économiques de la justice internationale ( 1 9 1 2 ) ; Heinrich Lammasch, Die Rechtskraft völkerrechtlicher Schiedssprüche ( 1 9 1 3 ) ; H. Lammasch, Das Völkerrecht nach dem Kriege (1917) ; Chr. L. Lange, Histoire de Γ internationalisme, tome I: Jusqu'à la Paix de Westphalie 1648 (1919) ; Walther Schiicking, Das völkerrechtliche Institut der Vermittlung ( 1923 ) ; Helen Bosanquet, Free Trade and Peace in the Nineteenth Century (1924). PERMANENT

LECTURESHIPS AT T H E

INSTITUTE

Another activity of academic character was inaugurated in the twenties. After several distinguished foreigners (for example, the Belgian Henri Pirenne and the Germans Walther Schiicking and Ludwig Quidde) had lectured at the Institute early in the decade, the Committee decided to arrange regular 17

R. Moe, Le Prix Nobel de la paix et rinstitut pp. 96-97.

Nobel norvégien, Vol. 1,

S U P P O R T OF THE PEACE CAUSE

189

series of lectures at the Institute on problems of international import. Among those who have appeared in these series are: 18 Rudolf Laun, Georges Weill, Edvard Bull, Nicolas Politis, Frede Castberg, Aage Friis, Eli Heckscher, Chas. Κ. Webster, Carl Joachim Hambro, and James T. Shotwell. The latter delivered four lectures in the fall of 1923 on "The World War in History." As American readers may remember, he had then undertaken to edit the Carnegie Endowment's Economic and Social History of the World, War, and he prefaced his discussion with a somewhat extended description of the problem of writing and assembling a history of the great conflict. Here, he said, the historian faced the problem of selection in an overwhelming way. The English material alone was extensive enough to form a lineal distance of over 200 miles; allowing for a rate of one page a minute, it would take one person 5,000 years to read it all." The Committee extended and regularized the lecture services of the Institute in 1928, when it established permanent lectureships with three-year terms. (One is reminded, in this connection, of the grandiose plans at the opening of the century for an international Institute.)20 The holders of these lectureships were to be eligible for reëlection once, but were not to serve more than six years unless the Committee made a special decision to that effect. They were to deliver something like a score of lectures a year, or, in lieu of these, in certain circumstances, to write for publication.21 Arrangements were made a few years later to have the lectures on international law published regularly in the Scandinavian journal devoted to that field.22 Two lecturers, Wilhelm Keilhau and A. C. Raestad, were appointed in 1928. The former we have already discussed; his 1» ¡bid., Vol. I, p. 98. 18 "Verdenskrigen i Historien," Morgenbladet, 1923, Nos. 293, 297, 301, 307. Supra, pp. 148-59. 21 Stortings Forhandlinger, 1929, V, dokument nr. 8. 22 Nordisk Tidsskrìft for international Ret, Vol. Ill, p. 1.

190

SUPPORT

OF THE PEACE

CAUSE

tenure as lecturer ended in 1934. Arnold Christopher Raestad ( 1 8 7 8 — ) 23 has been a doughty champion of free-trade policies and is a diligent student of post-War monetary standards and currency systems. He has been especially, though by no means exclusively, interested in that phase of international law which concerns intercourse on the sea and the rights of neutrals. 24 From 1 9 0 6 to 1 9 1 0 he served as Secretary to the Foreign Office, and in 1921-22 as Minister of Foreign Affairs. Recently he was made a member of a national committee which supervises radio broadcasting in Norway. In 1 9 3 5 , Arne Ording ( 1 8 9 8 — ) was appointed to a lectureship in recent political history. He had previously delivered a series of lectures at the Institute on "The First International and the Attitude of Karl Marx to International Politics." 25 Ording's sympathies are definitely of the Left; for a time he was in charge of the local Clarté organization. Representative of the younger generation of publicists, Ording has given particular attention to Nazism and other aspects of the class struggle. 28 Having now finished our survey of the Institute and its work, we may in the next few chapters turn to deal with the personnel and activities of the Nobel Committee itself. " C f . Wilhelm Keilhau, "Politikere X I : Raestad," Samtiden, Vol. XXXIV, pp. 44-54. 2 4 Of late he has been a frequent contributor to Nordisk Tidsskrift for international Ret. Studies representative of his work are: La Mer territoriale (Paris, 1913) ; Krigs- og Fredsproblemer (Christiania, 1916) ; Penger, Valuta og Gull (Oslo, 1934). 25 Stortings Forhandlinger, 1934, V, dokument nr. 5. 2 ( His more substantial works are : Le Bureau de police du Comité de salut public (Oslo, 1930); Den forste lnternasjonale (Oslo, 1936).

XIV

BJ0RNSON

AND

THE NOBEL

COMMITTEE

W H E N the Storting came to designate the five persons to serve on the first Nobel Committee, no choice seemed so obvious as that of Bj0rnstjerne Bj0rnson. He was the country's first citizen and by far its most distinguished pacifist; his commanding figure had quite likely influenced Alfred Nobel himself. The election seemed a richly deserved tribute to the efforts Bj0rnson had expended in the cause of peace. Besides, he would now be able to carry on from a new and more commanding vantage point. Bj0rnson had little taste for official duties and less for the routine of committee work—never once in the course of his long and strenuous life did he hold any public office—but he accepted the Nobel assignment without hesitation. What is more, his service on the Committee was far from perfunctory. We may therefore properly discuss here some of the ideas and suggestions he sought to carry out. CRITICISM OF THE BASIC STATUTES

Bj0rnson was not altogether satisfied with the basic Statutes of the Nobel Foundation as finally adopted. We know something of his reactions to those Statutes from a few notations he made upon his copy of them, which is available to us.1 These bear little upon major points, and pertain as frequently as not to financial matters. In general, it may be said, he wanted more flexibility and a larger measure of control in Norwegian hands. Thus, the rules governing the Norwegian Committee's Special Fund (Article Five) he would have had determined more 1

Nobelstiftelsen, Grundregler University Library in Oslo.

og sœrskilte

Bestemmelser.

MS. 989.8° at the

192

BJ0RNSON

AND THE

COMMITTEE

explicitly by the Storting. Likewise he would have introduced some option in the prescription (Article Thirteen) that the unexpended balances of sums set aside for administrative expenses of each prize-awarding group were to be applied to an Institute, by providing that these balances might be applied either to an Institute or to the promotion in some other way of the ultimate aims the testator had in mind. Again he would have extended the optional possibilities in the clause assigning certain sums to the Principal Fund or to the Special Fund (Article TwentyOne), by adding the phrase, "or put aside for the special use of the prize-awarding group concerned." The drift of his notations, it will be perceived, was to favor less rigidity in the restrictions on the use of the funds that were not specifically earmarked for the prize money. In another matter, too, he favored flexibility. Instead of requiring that all applications for the prizes must be submitted by February 1, he preferred to let each prize-awarding body determine its own rules on that point over five-year periods, or, failing that, to specify a separate deadline of April 1 in the case of the Peace Prize. Bj0rnson seems, originally at any rate, to have contemplated a regular standing committee of the Storting, sitting for the regular three-year term like any other parliamentary committee and making its recommendations to the parent body. 2 In personnel he would have had a strictly Norwegian Committee, or at most one only Scandinavian. 3 Hence he Avas aroused over the long debate in the Storting 4 which disclosed no little sentiment in favor of making the Committee a somewhat cosmopolitan body. As if it were not enough, he said, that individuals who were not members of the Storting were to be admitted to the Committee, some wished to carry self-effacement a step further and have Norway give up the honor of selecting the winner of the Peace B . Bj0rnson, " N o b e l p r œ m i e n , " Verdens Gang, May 25, 1900. J . Lftvland, Menn og Minner fra 1905, pp. 284-85, letter of J a n . 26, 1897, from Bj0rnson to L0vland. 4 Supra, pp. 139-44. 2

3

B J 0 R N S O N AND T H E C O M M I T T E E

193

Prize—a procedure about on a par, he judged, with the confusion of the poor man who for once in his life finds himself in polite society. Why should Norway give up this honor? asked Bj0mson. What people other than the Norwegian, with its arbitration petitions and its financial support of peace activities, had better kept abreast of the peace cause? What other people could claim so complete an objectivity in the matter, seeing that there was in its midst no one who might aspire to the Prize? If the Committee were to be an international one, Bj0rnson noted, he would then have no desire to be a member, nor, he felt, would some others. PLANS F O R A " R E V U E

NOBEL"

Reluctant as he was to give the Storting's Nobel Committee an international basis, Bj0rnson was eager at the outset to ensure an international quality for a periodical which he thought ought to be published in the interest of the peace cause. He had early formulated plans for such a periodical and had made up his mind to do what he could to enlist financial support for it. In a letter of December 22, 1900, we find him writing to some unidentified person of means who had shown "unique generosity" toward "our greatest institution of peace, the university, and the enlightenment radiating therefrom." 3 The intended "Revue Nobel," explained Bj0rnson, would be an elaborate periodical, published fortnightly in Paris in the three major languages, French, English, and German. It would pay higher honoraria than usual, in order to enlist the world's best writers, and it would be published according to the highest standards of the profession. It would never lose sight of its aim, which would be to expose the losses suffered through war and preparations for 5 The letter is in MS. 961 f°, in the University Library at Oslo. The person is not identified but someone at the Library has suggested, not without reason, that the letter may have been intended for Andrew Carnegie. At any rate, the steel magnate had by this time begun to make distinguished gifts for the advancement of higher learning.

194

B J 0 R N S O N AND T H E

COMMITTEE

war—losses in economic resources, in enlightenment, in morality. Bj0rnson explained that, as it was, he and his colleagues had resources enough to found such a periodical and to sustain it, but lacked the funds which "unfortunately" would be necessary to advertise the project in order that it might break through to an assured position from the outset. Bj0rnson believed that such a medium, if successfully launched, would be self-sustaining by the third year. In the event that his addressee had a favorable reply to make, Bj0rnson indicated that it should go to the Storting's Nobel Committee in Christiania. Should it prove unfavorable, he asked that it be sent to him personally at the Paris address where he was then staying.

We know pretty definitely what sort of a "Revue Nobel" Bj0rnson had in mind from a prospectus which he drafted and had printed for private circulation in an effort to enlist the support of persons of means. The appeal ran to about 1,000 words, and, since its compact argumentation discloses a number of Bj0rnson's basic premises, we may analyze it in some detail. Both the manuscript and the printed copy are available. It was not necessary, stated the introduction to the prospectus, to say anything in this connection of the sciences which the Swedish prize-awarding bodies represented. But there was a widespread desire among friends of peace that the Norwegian Nobel Committee should launch a first-class periodical to serve the peace cause which Nobel had so generously remembered. Such a periodical, as Bj0mson conceived it, might serve as an organ of the Institute of International Law. In any event, it would seek to enlist the energies of the best writers, the most distinguished scientists, and the most talented artists, in an untiringly vigilant fight against the ethics of war." And why should there be such an unrelenting drive on the ethics of war? β

In His writings Bj0rnson was prone to oppose the ethics of peace to the ethics of war, claiming that while man represented the latter, woman represented the former.

B J 0 R N S O N AND THE COMMITTEE

195

Because all the conditions necessary for the good life, all the standards we are taught to regard as indispensable by our great thinkers and religious leaders, are violated with impunity by those who pursue the ethics of war, whenever they choose to justify such action by appeals to "higher interests of state." No one in authority seems immune. Men prominent in the parliaments of the Great Powers do not hesitate at this very moment, said Bj0rnson, to proclaim a morality which is a negation, even a mockery, of all that we consider good and right ; popularly elected representatives also give their approval, avowedly or tacitly. Members of the Inter-Parliamentary Union even, save for a few exceptions that are without influence, remain silent. Kings and emperors who have most solemnly announced that the state, and political societies as such, are founded on the Christian religion, do not hesitate, if it is a matter of extending the power or the territory of their realms, to turn and act as if they recognize "a God above our God," who has given them absolution in advance to cover any violation they may perpetrate on "our" Deity. Yet if this barbaric conception—that every people has a God, each the natural enemy of every other—were applicable only to "higher interests of state," leaving other areas of social life untouched, one could hope that the war morality might atrophy in time and wither away. But the trouble is that, "more or less hidden, and often shamelessly exposed," this morality dominates many other aspects of our life in such a way that when the appropriate national signals are given, it is as if there awakened "a beast of prey in every one of us." This circumstance, the prospectus went on, gives some measure of the task to be faced. The manifold traces of the war morality must be hunted down in all walks of life. There must be an accounting with training in the home and teaching in the school, with history teaching and history writing, with instruction in religion and in morals. A stigma must be placed upon

196

BJ0RNSON

AND T H E

COMMITTEE

the male military virtues, so that they no longer dazzle the eyes of man's mate. In every line of endeavor there must be increased disdain for selfish politics and deceitful conduct; a standard of deportment higher than that practiced by most men, a new ideal of manhood (or morality), must come to prevail if the aims of the peace workers are to be attained. After these hortatory paragraphs, Bj0rnson's prospectus turned to more concrete proposals. In the task of ferreting out and scotching the manifold manifestations of the war morality — a task handed down from the noblest of men as a "holy inheritance to the race"—it would be very helpful to have a periodical of the significance proposed. Friends of peace everywhere might concentrate their energies in this central medium and bring them to bear upon international disagreements and war dangers. Through such a medium they must eventually attain a wide literary and journalistic influence. One suggestion, made—before the days of high-pressure syndication, the reader should bear in mind—by Johan von Bloch ( 1 8 3 6 - 1 9 0 2 ) contemplated a separate section within the editorial staff, whose task it should be to edit for distribution to papers and periodicals in various countries brief items which might possess " a strong propaganda power." The peace cause at large would gather an element of strength as readers in different countries realized that what they were reading at a certain moment was simultaneously being read in other lands and other languages. However, explained the prospectus, the undertaking here projected, called for an expenditure that far exceeded the resources of the Nobel Committee. A million marks would be needed before the Committee would " d a r e " lend such a periodical its name and support. With such a sum in view, however, the Committee would feel it had a mandate to proceed. Hence this prospectus appealed to all who had some substantial interest in the peace cause and the ability to give. Particularly was the appeal directed to those manufacturers and business men, who,

B J 0 R N S O N AND T H E C O M M I T T E E

197

it could be presumed, felt more pointedly than others the confusion that the war morality engendered in commercial intercourse and the world markets. In closing, Bj0rnson requested that this appeal be not made public, at any rate for the time being, since, in the event that it failed, the peace cause would be done unnecessary harm. Though both are undated, the manuscript draft of the prospectus is presumably earlier than the printed copy 7 and the variations in certain passages do not disclose any fundamental differences. There would seem to have been a little doubt in Bj0rnson's mind as to the extent the "Revue Nobel" should be partly an organ also of the prize-awarding groups at Stockholm. Thus the manuscript copy states briefly in the first paragraph that the aim of the review is to serve the peace cause, but the printed copy proceeds a bit more leisurely to mention, in addition to the peace cause, the sciences Nobel had benefited. That this reference was an afterthought is suggested also by a notation on the printed copy in the third from the last paragraph (in a hand perhaps not Bj0rnson's), where a passage refers to "this substantial sum in the interest of peace" and three words have been added in handwriting so that the corrected passage reads "this substantial sum in the interest of science and of peace." A similar change occurs in the second to the last paragraph; in the manuscript copy the appeal is made to leading merchants and manufacturers, while the printed draft makes the appeal in general to those of scientific and scholarly interests who have means, and then in particular to leading merchants and manufacturers. EFFORTS

TO SOLICIT FUNDS F O R T H E " R E V U E

NOBEL"

For several years Bj0rnson pushed with vigor his plan for a "Revue Nobel," seeking to enlist some promising Maecenas for 7 Both the manuscript draft and the printed copy are in the possession of the University Library at Oslo, Brev Sämling, No. 81.

198

B J 0 R N S O N AND THE

COMMITTEE

this cause. That he should so definitely make his appeal to industrialists and men of business, as the previous paragraph indicates, may seem a bit curious to a later generation which has learned through armament-ring disclosures and Wall Street investigations to think of business men and financiers less as potential friends of peace than as "merchants of death." Bj0rnson, however, was little disturbed by belief in categories of classconsciousness, and his appeal to men of wealth was made in good faith. It happens that the manuscript copy of the prospectus has at the close of it a note intended for some unknown friend, in which the latter is urgently enjoined to show the prospectus to a person named Br0chner in order to "warm" him for the cause. By way of a piece of advice on the technique of approach, the friend is reminded that only appeals made in person and in company with esteemed friends of the individual concerned would move capitalists who were at all sympathetic to contribute substantially. The Br0chner referred to is not easy to identify, though he may have been the Danish wholesaler and dealer, Georg Br0chner of Copenhagen. 8 That the identity cannot be settled is unfortunate, because the University Library at Oslo has a file 9 of more than a dozen letters and postal cards from Bj0rnson to him, bearing on the question of the proposed "Revue Nobel." These letters date from the years 1902 and 1903 and roughly parallel Bj0rnson's efforts to get a review launched. They imply that it was Br0chner who was to make the contacts necessary and serve as a sort of financial manager of the campaign.10 Bj0rnson was very much on the alert for wealthy men, particularly Americans, it would seem. In one letter he sought the name of an American, a San Franciscan according to his in8 A suggestion made by Reidar Omang of the University Library at Oslo. Cf. Krak, Kjtbenhavns Vejviser, 1905, p. 512. 9 Brev Sämling, No. 81. 10 ibid., letter of Dec. 20, 1902.

B J 0 R N S O N A N D THE COMMITTEE

199

formation, who reputedly had offered a sum of $1,000,000 for a library at The Hague.11 In another he was eager to report that a person in Paris, waiting for some translation from Br0chner (possibly of the prospectus), was none other than a business manager of Andrew Carnegie.12 Again he was anxious to remind Br0chner that a representative of the New York publishing firm of Appleton, then on business in Paris, was a friend of Carnegie.13 The letters to Br0chner make clear that the contemplated "Revue Nobel" was essentially Bj0rnson's project, and that he alone had to push the matter if it was to make any real headway among his fellow members of the Nobel Committee. His differences with his colleagues concerned not so much the question of starting a review, as that of the degree to which the Committee should take responsibility for the collection of funds and for publication. The members were willing to appropriate 10,000 to 20,000 [kroner presumably] to get an editor of international reputation,14 thinking this would facilitate the collection of funds.15 Early in 1903, it would seem, the Committee actually consented to try the larger project,18 it being agreed that the request should take the form of a communication from Bj0rnson to the Committee, to be approved in turn by the Committee, by various members of the Norwegian government, and by persons of distinction in Sweden, Denmark, England, and elsewhere.17 " ibid., letter of Feb. 19, 1902. Ibid., postal card [dated Feb. 24, 1903, by another hand]. Recognizing the remote possibility that this person might be Frederick William Holls, the American constitutional lawyer, the present writer consulted Holls' unpublished Letters and Papers in the Columbia University Library, but found no clue to suggest this identity. Ibid., postal card dated Jan. 12, 1903. 14 Bjftmson evidently had in mind Fernand Labori (1860-1917), the lawyer who had gained European renown by his defense of Zola and of Dreyfus. R. Moe, Le Prix Nobel de la paix et ΓInstitut Nobel norvégien, Vol. I, p. 150. 15 Brev Sämling, No. 81, letter of Sept. 16, 1902. 18 Ibid., letter of Jan. 28, 1903. 17 Ibid. Cf. letters of Feb. 12, 1902, Feb. 2 [?], 1903, and March 19, 1903. 12

200

BJ0RNSON

AND THE

COMMITTEE

The translation of the appeal into French and English, together with matters of printing, was left to Br0chner. 18 In spite of Bj0rnson's efforts, however, no "Revue Nobel" materialized. As the Committee explained in a letter to one who had been asked to serve on a preliminary committee to consider the projected review, its invitation had not elicited the broad support which seemed necessary, and the Committee was forced to regard these efforts as ineffective. 19 In its regular annual report, the Committee briefly observed that it felt that the establishment of a periodical of its own was beyond its mandate. 20 About this time too, as we have seen, the Nobel Foundation undertook to publish a yearbook."' Bj0rnson chose to explain that the difficulty had been due to the fact that, as the Nobel Foundation was organized, the Storting's Nobel Committee did not have its hands sufficiently free in financial matters. He had earlier, we recall, wanted changes in the basic Statutes to enlarge that freedom, and he now spoke of the Committee as being under the tutelage of " a society in Stockholm." To its own shame and the detriment of the peace cause, he complained, the Committee seemed unable to free itself of this connection, and he found a term to cover the situation in the phrase "peace hypocrisy." When a Swedish paper objected to these reflections on Swedish citizens, Bj0rnson reiterated his charges in a letter, maintaining that the Storting should have insisted on a full control of one-fifth of the Nobel Foundation's revenues, as well as of its own Committee. There would then have been no occasion for members of the latter to sit each year "like school boys on a bench," listening while "the Swedish schoolmaster's observations were read aloud to it." 22 18

¡bid.., letters of Jan. 8, 1903 [Jan. 28, 1903], and March 19, 1903. Brev Sämling, No. 2, letter of June 6, 1904, to Sophus Bugge, the distinguished philologist. 20 Stortings Forhandlinger, 1903-4, V, dokument nr. 37, p. 2. -1 Supra, p. 183. 22 Ajtonbladet (Stockholm), Nov. 21 and Dec. 3, 1904. 19

B J 0 R N S O N AND T H E C O M M I T T E E BJ0RNSON'S

RELATIONS WITH T H E

NOBEL

201

COMMITTEE

None too well fitted by temperament for committee work, Bj0rnson turned out to be quite unfortunate in some of his relations with the Nobel Committee, so many of whose affairs had to be kept private and confidential. His blustering methods and his impatience with delay at times led him to violate confidences which his colleagues found it necessary to respect. For instance, of Czar Nicholas of Russia whom he had on occasion defended in the nineties, he later spoke quite disparagingly because of the Imperial policies in Finland and in Manchuria. Again, in a manner quite contrary to the obligation of secrecy, he aired his opinions on a candidacy considered by the Committee, namely that of Baroness Bertha von Suttner. In November, 1904, being then in Rome, he wrote a letter 23 to his colleagues on the Committee, urging that the Baroness be the choice for the prize. He insisted that in this matter the Committee owed a duty to Nobel's memory, a duty which it must fulfil at the earliest opportunity, before it proceeded further. Bj0rnson explained that Emmanuel Nobel, a nephew of the inventor, had visited him in Stockholm the year before, and had insisted, on the basis of his familiarity with Alfred Nobel, that the latter had been determined to reward the Baroness for her peace work. Likewise a certain Lieutenant Ehrenborg, who was one of the witnesses to the signature of Nobel's will, had impressed on Bj0rnson, as the latter had passed through Gothenburg on his way to Italy, that Nobel would certainly have wanted to reward the Baroness. Bj0rnson confessed that he had expected to vote this year for the Baron d'Estournelles de Constant, but he now maintained that the correct thing was to fulfil the duty to Nobel's memory. Noblesse oblige, he insisted. Postponement now would probably mean that something important would intervene before the next selection of a prize winner. 23

MS. 961 f°, D, in the University Library at Oslo.

202

B J 0 R N S O N AND THE COMMITTEE

Bj0mson was certainly within his rights in thus seeking to convince his fellow Committee members that this time the Prize should go to the Baroness. But his procedure became very questionable when he permitted his letter to the Committee to reach the Berliner Tageblatt,24 with the addendum that he took this action to clear himself of responsibility for the Committee's failure to award the prize as he advised. He would have resigned his place on the Committee, he said, had he been present at the decisive meeting which thus failed in its duty. Naturally the Norwegian papers republished the Tageblatt letter,25 but it was pointed out shortly afterward that the other members of the Committee were prevented from making any reply to Bj0rnson, or from casting any additional light upon the matter, both by their obligation of secrecy and by the clause forbidding any exception to or protest of a prize award.26 The episode had its reverberations a year later, when the decision was to be made again. This time a dispatch from Berlin concluded that the Baroness would receive the award, since Bj0rnson had been present at the meetings and had apparently not found it necessary to resign.27 TERMINATION

OF B J 0 R N S O N ' S

COMMITTEE

TENURE

In a very oblique manner, not at all commensurate with his many distinguished services to the peace cause, Bj0rnson's tenure with the Nobel Committee was terminated abruptly in 1906. He was that year completing his first full term of six years and, in routine fashion, the appropriate Storting committee nominated him for reëlection. There was no obvious hostility toward him, and in the debate on the committee report his name was not even mentioned. Hence there was every expectation that « Nov. 30, 1904. 25 Morgenbladet, Dec. 13, 1904; Aftenposten, Dec. 13, 1904. 29 "Nobelkomiteens Taushedspligt," Morgenbladet, Dec. 15, 1904. 27 Aftenposten, Dec. 8, 1905.

B J 0 R N S O N AND T H E C O M M I T T E E

203

he would be reëlected. To the amazement of the nation at large, and without doubt of the rest of the world, however, the vote when taken showed that Bj0rnson had, by a few votes, failed of reelection.28 What had happened? In brief, an intransigent faction of the Left, together with some of the landsmaal enthusiasts who could not forget that after flirting with their movement in his early days Bj0rnson had later turned decisively against it, had chosen to take revenge on him. Certain incorrigible liberals—or better, incorrigible nationalists—could not forgive him for his defection in 1893-95, when he had recoiled before the specter of war with Sweden and had advocated arbitration. Furthermore, he had in the last dozen years weakened the position of the party through a roundabout sortie. The experiences of the first half of the nineties had convinced him that one half of Norway (the half the Left represented) could not successfully challenge Sweden and the other half. The way out, as he saw it, must be to unite all Norwegians against Sweden, though this would seriously disrupt the monopoly, which the Left had long enjoyed, of anti-Swedish and anti-Unionist agitation. The coalition group which won control in 1903 was in no small degree of Bj0rnson's making, and in 1905 it carried through the separation from Sweden in such a way as to leave the members of the assertive Left in no position to claim for their party any special credit for this supreme national accomplishment. Bj0rnson found himself more vulnerable than ever after 1903, when he was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature. He was now exposed to a volley of attacks on the ground that he had sold out to the Swedes, or, worse, that here at last was his reward for turning his coat in Unionist politics and deserting Norway's "national party." It availed little for him to point to letters from Sweden suggesting that the recipient of the literature prize had 28

Stortings

Forhandlinger,

1905-6, VII, 2829-31.

204

B J 0 R N S O N AND THE COMMITTEE

really been chosen before he took his stand on the Union issue in 1903. 2 9 The crowning measure of his "desertion" was manifest in 1905, when he, the grand old republican, gave his approval to the choice of monarchy for the new Norway. As if that were not enough, he accepted the Karlstad agreement, which in the eyes of the extremists not only weakened Norway's national defenses, but also left a blot upon the escutcheon of her national independence. In accepting the treaty despite the hated clauses providing for a neutral zone and for the dismantling of the barrier fortresses, Bj0rnson argued that failure to have done so would h a v e meant w a r with its attendant f u t u r e insecurity.

Defeat

would have cost Norway Smaalenene or Nordlandene, possibly both; victory would never have been accepted by the Swedes as final, and they would have armed for a war of revenge. In the Karlstad agreement, he insisted, the situation had been correctly estimated. 30 In the vote on the report of the Storting committee which had recommended the election of Bj0rnson, L0vland, and Berner, there had been no direct question of dropping Bj0rnson. But a curious parliamentary situation had developed. As Thore Myrvang ( 1 8 5 8 — ) one of the deputies of the Left, explained it,31 the nominations had already been made when a couple of "subordinate functionaries" of the Nobel Foundation had pointed out that at present the Nobel Committee had in it no specialist in jurisprudence (Getz had died in 1901) and had suggested that Francis Hagerup might be a suitable candidate. When it came to the vote on the three candidates nominated by the elections committee, Myrvang rose to nominate Hagerup, though he refused to indicate which of the three regular nominees he would have his nominee replace. The result of this vote 28

31

"Bj0rnson og Nobelprasmien," Aftenposten, Oct. 31, 1904. Cf. Β. Bjprnson, "Vor Synd og vor Ydmygelse," Samliden, Vol. XVII, p. 575. Oplandenes Avis, July 1 8 [ ? ] , 1906.

B J 0 R N S O N AND T H E C O M M I T T E E

205

for three out of four candidates was: Hagerup, 9 3 ; L0vland, 9 0 ; Berner, 63; Bj0rnson, 52.32 The maneuver was a clever one and had worked; without the odium of a direct negative vote, Bj0rnson had been eliminated in this four-cornered contest. When it was realized that Bj0rnson actually was out of the Nobel Committee, reactions were diverse. A faithful landsmaal paper, becoming personally abusive toward him, spoke of his replacement by Hagerup as "a good exchange," 33 and insisted that there was every reason for his elimination from the Committee.34 But the dominant reaction was one of disapproval. 35 The Storting, said one, would have done well to remember that it had been Bj0rnson's efforts, in no small degree, which in the first place had brought to it the honor of administering the Peace Prize. 38 It seemed "an extraordinarily small-minded exploit" 37 to another, while a third remarked that the old poet and publicist had sustained an undeserved mortification in a move that simultaneously gave the "picked troops" of the Left cause for "a rejoicing highly undeserved." 88 In any case the exclusion could create no good impression abroad. 39 One has to agree with majority opinion in this matter. True, Bj0rnson as a member of the Nobel Committee had not always been discreet, but that had not been the basis for the vote against him, and his manifold services to the peace cause quite outweighed any such shortcomings. For a generation he had been easily the country's foremost peace advocate. The vote against him was a remarkable expression of ingratitude on the part of an intractable element of the body Nobel had seen fit to honor so highly. And it was an open question—considering the cir32

Stortings Forhandlinger, 1905-6, VII, 2829-31. Den 17 de Mai, June 16, 1906. " Ibid., June 19, 1906. « Cf. Nidaros, June 16, 1906; Dagbladet, June 16, 1906. 36 Dagsposten, June 16, 1906. 37 Moss Avis, June 15, 1906. 38 Morgenbladet, June 15, 1906. 39 Cf. Politiken (Copenhagen), June 16, 1906. 33

206

B J 0 R N S O N AND THE

COMMITTEE

cumstances of the vote—whether in a straight ballot to exclude or elect Bj0rnson he would not have won out. All that mattered in the end, however, was that an oblique parliamentary maneuver had eased him out of the Committee. There was something incongruous about this ending, incongruous because he who had never hedged on any issue and who ever had moved into battle brandishing all his weapons deserved at least a chance to be defended in an open contest by those who were still loyal to him.

X V

PERSONNEL OF THE COMMITTEE W E TURN from Bj0rnson to a general survey of the personnel, past and present, of the Nobel Committee. Several of the members have been sketched at different points earlier in this study and we may omit any detailed consideration of them here. Reelections of members have frequently been the rule. In the four and a half decades of the Committee's existence there have been some strikingly long periods of service; Horst was a member for three full decades from 1901 to 1931. How insistent has been the continuity in personnel may be seen from the accompanying table which has been arranged to show, in the left hand column, the members of the first committee, and in the right, those serving at present, or until very recently: B. Bj0rnson

(1897-1906)

G. F. Hagerup (1907-1921) Fredrik Stang (1921—) Johannes Steen (1897-1901) Carl Berner (19M-1918) Halvdan Koht (1919-C19361) (Birger Braadland [1937—]) J. L0vland (1897-1922) W. Konow, S Β (1922-1924) J . L. Mowinckel (1924-1936) Cunnar Jahn (1937—) John Lund (1897-1913) Bernhard Hanssen (1913—) Bernhard Getz (1897-1901) H. J . Horst (1901-1931) Axel Thallaug (1931-1933) Chr. L Lange (1934—)

The members, as we have said earlier, serve six-year terms, so arranged that three terms end at one time and two at another. The present terms of Hanssen and Lange run to 1939. Elections

208

P E R S O N N E L OF THE

COMMITTEE

for the other three memberships were held in the routine manner in the midsummer of 1936, and Stang, Koht, and Mowinckel were reëlected for the terms beginning in 1937. The following November, however, the membership was disturbed by the delicate situation growing out of the candidacy of Carl von Ossietzky. Koht and Mowinckel resigned, Koht because he was his country's Foreign Minister, and Mowinckel—-with less justification, some felt—because as titular leader of an Opposition party, the Left, who had several times been Prime Minister, he felt that his position also had a semi-official character. Mowinckel's withdrawal was made definitive in June of 1937, when Gunnar Jahn was chosen as his successor, but Koht is to finish the balance of his new term if he ceases to be Foreign Minister before its expiration in 1942. Official cognizance was taken of these difficulties when the Storting in June, 1937, voted an additional regulation on the election of Committee members. This clause provided that whenever a member of the Nobel Committee entered the Cabinet or whenever a Cabinet official became a member of the Nobel Committee he was not to participate in the deliberations of the Committee during his Cabinet tenure, and the Committee's first alternate was to serve in his place. 1 This gives us occasion to say a word about the alternates, who have as their duty to fill vacancies in the case of unexpired terms of Committee members. The Storting chooses three such alternates, usually, for three-year terms. Those serving for 1934-36 were: A. A. Thallaug, M. Tranmael, and A. R. Vassbotn. Following the withdrawals of Koht and Mowinckel, Thallaug and Tranmael, as first and second alternates, respectively, joined the Committee on Nov. 23, 1936, when it deliberated on the prizes for 1935 and 1936. Of Thallaug we shall say more below, since he has also been a full-fledged member of the Committee. ] T h i s modification will obviously be noted in the Committee's annual report for 1937. For what knowledge he has of the matter at the time of going to press, the present writer is indebted to Mr. Ragnvald Moe, Director of the Norwegian Nobel Institute.

P E R S O N N E L OF T H E C O M M I T T E E

209

Anders Rasmussen Vassbotn (1868—) is a former member of the Storting, a publicist, and also something of a poet. Martin Tranmael (1879—) is one of the leading figures in the Norwegian Labor party and editor of the Party's official organ. In the early post-War years he helped to give a decidedly leftward tendency to the Norwegian labor movement, yet he and some of his colleagues were not disposed to accept dictation from Moscow. The independent position assumed by the Norwegian labor movement is due in large part to the leadership of the group to which Tranmael belongs. Tranmael and Vassbotn were reëlected as alternates for the new term 1937-39 at the routine elections in midsummer of 1936. But Thallaug was replaced as first alternate by Major Braadland. Birger Braadland (1879—) is by training a military man—some of his business interests link him also to the lumber industry—but he has served Norway in the cause of peace as well. He was Minister of Foreign Affairs in the Agrarian Cabinet of 1931-33. On several occasions he has been a member of Norway's delegation to the League Assembly at Geneva, and he sat on the League Council when Norway was a member of that body in the early thirties. As first alternate on the Nobel Committee for 1937-39 it has fallen to Braadland to take Koht's place for the time being. J0RGEN L0VLAND

Among those who were appointed to the original Committee in 1897, l,0vland was the one who came to enjoy the longest period of service. Our first extended sketch in this chapter we may therefore devote to him. Jorgen Gunnarson L0vland (18481922) 2 was by calling a school teacher, and though he later 2 J . L0vland, Menn og Minner fra 1905 (Oslo, 1929). Sketches of him have appeared in a number of periodicals. See especially H. Koht, " J . L0vland," Syn og Segn, Vol. X X I X , pp. 1-17, 49-63, also printed separately; W. Keilhau, "Politikere X : L0vland," Samtiden, Vol. X X X I I I , pp. 469-77; Norvegia sacra. Vol. Ill, pp. 272-80; Kirke og Kultur, Vol. X X I X , pp. 394-96; Journalisten, 1922, pp. 97-98; Norsk

210

P E R S O N N E L OF T H E

COMMITTEE

turned to journalism never quite lost some of the mannerisms of the classroom. In 1886 he entered the Storting as representative of the southernmost constituency of Christianssand. He was Minister for Labor in the second Steen Ministry, and in the critical year 1905 was one of the Norwegian ministers stationed at Stockholm. After the separation from Sweden, Prime Minister Michelsen entrusted him with the task of organizing a Foreign Office and a diplomatic corps. L0vland thus became Norway's first Foreign Minister. When Michelsen retired in 1908, L0vland became Prime Minister. He sought to hold together the coalition which had been in control since 1903, but in 1908 he was forced to give way to an out-and-out Left ministry under Gunnar Knudsen. Thereafter L0vland was inactive in national politics until 1913, when he returned to the Storting for a term as representative from Telemarken. The last important office he held (1915-1920) was the portfolio of Ecclesiastical and Educational Affairs in the Knudsen Ministry. L0vland's career was in some respects a symbol of rural Norway's rejuvenation. A movement of broad social scope, looking toward the emancipation of the Norwegian peasant and cotter, marked the second half of the nineteenth century. It contemplated the day when his spokesmen might rise to positions of the highest responsibility in national affairs, and might move in circles of grace and refinement without any trace of obsequiousness. The movement was most vocal in the landsmaal agitation, which sought to validate so much in the peasant's culture.3 Quite appropriately, L0vland came from one of the most Norwegian of all provinces, from Setesdal. This fact means little to the general reader. To the person familiar with Norway's cultural history, however, it tells a whole story, for the peasant's traditional culture, with its folklore and its folkways, had been Skoletidende, 1923, pp. 2 4 7 4 9 ; Folkefred, 157-59. 3 Cf. Part IV of the writer's National 1933).

1922, p. 7; Norsk Romanticism

Aarbok,

in Norway

1922, pp.

(New York,

P E R S O N N E L OF T H E C O M M I T T E E

211

unusually well preserved in this region. The province was a collector's paradise where the folklorist or the philologist came to gather up its national "treasures." L,0vland attended normal school long enough to qualify as a teacher, but in the main he was self-taught. He was a voracious reader. He steeped himself especially in national history, and he identified himself wholeheartedly with the landsmaal movement. In later life he apparently regretted that he had not as a youth discarded "the old Danish official form" of his name and followed the "correct" Norwegian enunciation by spelling it Lauvland.4 When he came to hold distinguished office he was able to give new prestige to the landsmaal and new encouragement to its assertive proponents. To the dismay of the conservatives, he employed the rustic medium from the Speaker's chair in the Storting in 1913, and used it in the conduct of general business at the Royal Palace. It was during his incumbency as Minister of Ecclesiastical and Educational Affairs that a new set of regulations defining usages in the landsmaal and riksmaal was promulgated (1917). In the light of what has been said, it seems natural that L,0vland should be unmistakably nationalist in his point of view. He was nationalist not in a chauvinist sense so much as in the sense of taking the broad and nationally inclusive view of things. He had had occasion to know, coming as he did from one of the isolated regions, how inexorably the steep mountain valleys of the country could separate parish from parish and province from province. The improvement of communication interested him a great deal; he was long a faithful member of the Storting's committee on railway affairs and he pressed for extension of the state's telephone and telegraph services. Like many others of the Left, L^vland was a staunch supporter of the national defense. Disarmament, he held, endangered peace instead of promoting it, so long as small states lived « Halrdan Koht, "J. Lftvland," Den frilyndte

Ungdomen, Vol. Ill, p. 11.

212

PERSONNEL

OF T H E

COMMITTEE

in the midst of Great Powers that were heavily armed. The best guarantee of peace must be sought in a good defense. To abolish the military and rely only upon peace agreements was, he thought, like putting one's faith in insurance policies and abolishing the fire department. His ideas were welcome enough in certain circles, 5 but they naturally evoked some ridicule in others, which found these expressions rather strange ones to come from the chairman of the Nobel Committee. 6 Small wonder, under these circumstances, said one, that the prize had been given to Roosevelt; it would be no surprise if next time it went to the Czar of Russia. 7 Regardless of the turn that others might give to his words, L0vland had a genuine interest in the peace cause. He was eager to see arbitration applied in a boundary dispute with Sweden,8 and on several occasions after becoming Foreign Minister in 1 9 0 5 he sought to translate his convictions on the peace question into practice. At Karlstad, it appears, it was primarily due to his initiative that the provision for the neutral zone was adopted. Personally he would have been glad to extend the zone even farther north than the limit agreed upon.9 He had realized clearly that failure to reach an agreement at Karlstad must entail one result—war between the two peoples. It was under L0vland, too, that the inexperienced Foreign Office negotiated the somewhat ill-starred Integrity Treaty of 1907, 1 0 which, whatever its remoter implications, did offer the immediate prospect of neutralizing Norway and of making her immune to war. It was during L0vland's incumbency also that the Norwegian delegates to the second Hague Conference were given full authority Cf. "Renault i Bondeungdomslaget," Den 17de Mai, May 23, 1908. Social-Demokraten, July 26, 1907; Arbeidet, March 9, 1908; Fredsbanneret, Vol. IX, December, 1913, pp. 45-46. 7 Dovre, March 18, 1908. » J . L0viand, "Mellemfolkelig Voldgift," Samtiden, Vol. XV, p. 416. 8 J . L0vland, Menn og M inner fra 1905, p. 215; W. Keilhau, "Politikere VI: Christian Michelsen," Samtiden, Vol. XXVIII, pp. 77-78. 10 Supra, pp. 99-100. 5

6

P E R S O N N E L OF T H E C O M M I T T E E

213

to enter treaties that would bind states to settle all disputes by peaceful means. L0vland served as a member of the Nobel Committee from its inception in 1897 until his death in 1922. A slightly extended discussion of his career has seemed in order, partly in view of the fact that from the death of Getz in 1901 he was the Committee's presiding officer. A long list of winners received their prizes at his hand in the ceremonies of award during the first two decades of the Committee's activity. S T E E N AND

BERNER

Among the original members of the Committee, Steen could lend the body a certain official dignity by virtue of the fact that he was the titular head of the Left and on occasion the country's Prime Minister. Johannes Vilhelm Christian Steen (18271906) 1 1 was born in Christiania, but made his career as a teacher and school administrator at points remote from the capital, namely, at Bergen, at Troms0 in the far north, and at Stavanger. Liberal and democratic currents captivated him, French ideals of liberty in the abstract coming to mean more to him, perhaps, than the English notions of growth and development. In 1854 he helped to found a liberal paper at Bergen, and in his first session in the Storting (1859-60) he was one of the organizers of a liberal group called Reformforeningen ("The Reform Association"), whose vice-president he became. In the course of the four decades after 1860 he served a good many terms in the Storting, representing now one constituency, now another. In the eighties he found himself at odds with the great leader of the Left, Johan Sverdrup, and when the latter brought on a schism in the party, Steen emerged as the leader of the "pure" Left. For almost a generation he remained the leader of the new party; on two occasions he was Prime Minister 1 1 Halvdan Koht, "Statsminister Steen," Syn og Segn, Vol. VIII 193-206.

(1902), pp.

214

PERSONNEL

OF THE

COMMITTEE

( 1 8 9 1 - 9 3 , 1 8 9 8 - 1 9 0 2 ) . Indecisive in manner, he was hardly distinguished for his party discipline, but he had qualities which rallied men to his side. The genial twinkle in his eye must have endeared him to more than one party hack. As head of his party, Steen had to represent its stand on various issues, including the peace cause. In his official capacity as Prime Minister, he welcomed the delegates to the InterParliamentary Conference at Christiania in 1 8 9 9 , an act which made a deep impression on the foreign delegates, who were not accustomed to being thus received by officials in authority. 1 2 When Steen withdrew from the Nobel Committee in 1 9 0 4 his unexpired term was completed

by B c m c r , an alternate.

Carl

Christian Berner ( 1 8 4 1 - 1 9 1 8 ) 1 3 having shown some aptitude for science and mathematics, had, like his predecessor, chosen teaching for a profession, and eventually had become director of the Bergen Technical School. He represented Bergen in the Storting from 1 8 8 6 to 1 8 9 1 and again from 1 8 9 5 to 1 9 0 3 ; from 1 9 0 3 to 1 9 0 9 he represented Sarpsborg in the southeastern part of the country. He was at Stockholm as a member of the first Steen Ministry and later served a long term as Speaker of the Storting. Outside of politics he had an interest in national antiquities. 14 He helped to found, and became the first president of, Nordmanns-forbundet

( " T h e League of N o r s e m e n " ) , a frater-

nity of patriotic Norwegians, with headquarters in Oslo and with branches and locals in every land and clime where men and women of Norwegian birth and origin live and work. In his public career, Berner's most characteristic asset was his emphasis on deportment. He was always the man of tact, ever insisting on the correct procedure, carefully building up his speeches point by point. The Left, distinguished rather for ' - C f . supra, p. 112; Bertha von Suttner, "Die Entwicklung der Friedensbewegung," Les Prix Nobel en 1905, p. 4. 13 W. Keilhau, "Politikere VII: Carl Berner," Samtiden, Vol. XXIX, pp. 341-47. 1 4 Cf. Foreningen til norske Fortidsmindersmœrkers Bevaring: Aarsberetning for 1919, pp. 1-4.

PERSONNEL

OF THE COMMITTEE

215

its indecorum, had need of such a man in the last two decades of the Union. The contest with Sweden had to be pressed through a labyrinth of petitions and motions and resolutions and orders of the day. Matters of vital importance might depend on the delicate turn of a phrase or on the sequence according to which parliamentary moves were made. Berner became the Left's most distinguished - parliamentary tactician. Appropriately enough, the resolution carried in February, 1891, and often cited later, which affirmed Norway's position of equality within the Union and her unequivocal right to administer her own affairs, was moved by Berner. So, too, it was eminently fortunate that his counsels were available in the deliberations preceding the Storting's fateful declaration of June 7, 1905, that the Bernadotte monarchy had ceased to function as the sovereign of Norway. He was in the Speaker's chair that day. The term on the Nobel Committee which Berner undertook to fill as alternate ended in 1906, and he was then regularly nominated and elected, continuing to serve thereafter without interruption until his death in 1918. FRANCIS

HAGERUP

We have noted above " how Hagerup was brought into the Committee on the plea that the latter ought to include a specialist in the field of jurisprudence. Georg Francis Hagerup (18531921) 1 6 had first studied medicine, but had later changed to the law. After some practical experience, he became professor of jurisprudence at the University. He proved to be a good lecturer and a facile writer, publishing a seemingly endless succession of contributions to legal research. On several occasions he interrupted his academic life to take a part in public affairs. Again and again he served as member or as chairman of this or Supra, pp. 204-5. Tidsskrift for Retsvidenskab, New Series, Vol. I (1922), pp. 5-178, contains a full bibliography on Hagerup, pp. 134-78. 15 18

216

P E R S O N N E L OF T H E

COMMITTEE

that committee. He was for a time Minister of Justice in the second Stang Cabinet (1893-95), then went to join the Norwegian section of the Ministry at Stockholm. In the last decade of the Union he headed two Ministries of his own. After the separation he became Norway's first Minister to Denmark (1906-16), his commission including also The Hague and, later, Brussels. During the War he was transferred to Stockholm, where he remained as Minister until his death. Hagerup was by temperament very conservative—innately, almost congenitally, conservative—and his preoccupation with the law and with precedents no doubt strengthened his conservatism. As a jurist he belonged to the positivist school. Law, to

him, was what had developed in actual practice; it was something self-sufficient, detached from social and economic phenomena, detached even from the society of men. The law was to be understood in terms of itself. Hagerup was reluctant to take hasty action in any matter and always preferred negotiation. Hence he seemed the one best fitted to ease the tension with Sweden after 1895, and he was authorized to form a coalition Ministry (1895-98). After the Left had had another inning and the situation again seemed to demand a compromise government, Hagerup formed his second coalition Ministry (1903-5). But when a crisis developed anew, his formula of "negotiation -—only negotiation" fell short, and the surge of events cast up the "men of action" who carried through the separation from Sweden in 1905. Hagerup's interest in the peace cause developed late in life and somewhat against his own impulses. 17 His eventual approach to it was by way of the discipline of international law. His traditional interest, until the end of the century, was in comparative and municipal law; even when he finally did become concerned with the international division of his subject, he was 17 Chr. L. Lange, "Francis Hagerup som Internasjonalist," Retsvidenskab, New Series, Vol. I, pp. 59-97.

Tidsskrift

for

P E R S O N N E L OF T H E COMMITTEE

217

inclined to specialize in negative aspects of it: for instance, in the laws and regulations designed to humanize the conduct of war. He had little faith, for a long time at any rate, in the efforts to come to grips with war in a positive way; he saw little reason to believe that it would be possible to substitute for war any scheme of international order. Hence he had no enthusiasm for the policy of permanent neutrality. When the Storting's special committee on this policy reported affirmatively in 1902, Hagerup, who was a member, refrained from making an objection to the majority report only after some pressure had been brought to bear upon him. Nor did he think very much of the arbitration procedure, though he grew less skeptical of it as the years passed. Even after the second Hague Conference, he was concerned to point out that the potentialities of the arbitral procedure were most limited. The serious conflicts of the world, he insisted, were rooted in conflicts of interests which were too fundamental to be solved by arbitration, though he did concede that the process of arbitration had some place in settling disputes of a juridical character. 18 By and large, at this stage of his career, he took a middle position in his attitude toward organized peace work, being sympathetic neither with the naïve Utopians who imagined that the era of perpetual peace was already knocking at the door nor with the skeptics who poohpoohed any effort to substitute law for the disorder prevailing in international life. Lukewarm and negative as Hagerup was toward many endeavors on behalf of peace, his career placed him in a position to give no inconsiderable support to peace work. His country, being small in population, had few jurists who could be considered specialists in international law and she had to make full use of those she had, especially since she had chosen to play an active rôle in the international peace movement. In 1897 18 F. ¡hieren,

Hagerup, "Fredskonferencerne og den Vol. I (1909), pp. 351-67.

moderne Fredsbevœgelse,"

Til·

218

P E R S O N N E L OF T H E

COMMITTEE

Hagerup was elected a member of the Institute of International Law; when the Institute met at Christiania in 1912, he presided and delivered a discourse that was intended to serve as the Institute's fulfilment of the obligation that every winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, which the Institute had won in 1904, is to deliver a lecture at Christiania on the subject of peace. 1 ' In 1902, when King Oscar II acted as arbitrator in the Samoan dispute, Hagerup was his adviser; in 1903 he represented Norway in the Court of Arbitration at The Hague. At the second Hague Conference in 1907 he was naturally a member of Norway's delegation and was elected chairman of a subcommittee on warfare at sea. Some years later he was put in charge of a commission to prepare for Norway's participation in the third Hague Conference, planned for 1915 or 1916. He served as referee in the arbitration of the Ceretti case, between Italy and Colombia. At Copenhagen and Stockholm during the War years he had much to do, in striving through Scandinavian cooperation to maintain the neutrality of the North. At the close of the War, he helped to organize the Permanent Court of International Justice. He was on the committee which drafted the statutes of the proposed court, and when the first League Assembly in 1920 referred the matter to its Third Committee, Hagerup, who was a member of this body, was selected chairman of the subcommittee which considered the statutes in detail. With the passing of the years Hagerup's interest in international law had grown more positive, and he began to prepare a handbook on the subject. His work was interrupted by the War, and though he later planned to issue the book in collaboration with Mikael H. Lie, one of the counsellors at the Nobel Institute,20 death overtook him too soon. The work was eventually issued in 1932 by Thorvald Boye. 21 Cf. infra, p. 242. Supra, pp. 175-76. 2 1 F . Hagerup, F olker et t i Fredstid: (Oslo, 1932). 18

20

Efter

Forfatterens

ufullendte

Manuskript

PERSONNEL OF THE COMMITTEE

219

Characteristically enough, Hagerup retained to the end some of his old hesitancy about peace projects. He was very skeptical of the League of Nations as it took form. As a member of a Norwegian committee formed during the War to cooperate with similar Swedish and Danish bodies on matters of neutrality and on plans for the peace to come, Hagerup felt that this group had exceeded its authority when, at the close of the War, it proceeded to draw up tentative proposals for a league of peoples. He resigned in January, 1919. The idea of such a league was too much for him. As a citizen of a small state, he feared the dominance of the Great Powers in such a federation. Yet when the machinery of the League had been set up at Geneva, he consented to head Norway's delegation to the First Assembly, where he took an active part, as we have seen, in its labors on the Permanent Court. Hagerup's health, however, was failing and the extra exertion at Geneva weakened his resistance and contributed to his final illness. So it came about, as a colleague said, that he who had so late and so reluctantly recognized the validity of the peace endeavors himself finally fell on "the breastwork of internationalism." 22 THALLAUG AND JAHN

If we disregard the case of Gjelsvik, who merely substituted for Bj0rnson for a time in 1904, three persons have served very brief terms as members of the Nobel Committee. All three were alternates who filled unexpired terms—Konow (who took the place left vacant by the death of L0vland in 1922 and had not quite completed the term when he himself died in 1924), Thallaug, and Tranmael. As Gjelsvik, Konow, and Tranmael have been dealt with elsewhere in this study 23 we shall here speak only of Thallaug. 22

Chr. L. Longe, "Francis Hagerup som Intemaejonaliet," Tidsskrijt Retsvidenskab, New Series, Vol. I, p. 94. 2 » Supra, pp. 48-49, 175, 208, 209.

for

220

P E R S O N N E L OF THE C O M M I T T E E

Axel Andreas Thallaug ( 1 8 6 6 — ) has the distinction of being the only person to have served two non-consecutive periods with the Committee. He finished the two years left of Horst's term ( 1 9 3 1 - 3 3 ) and then, instead of succeeding himself as a substitute member of the Committee, resumed his place as first alternate. It was as such that he sat with the Committee again in November, 1 9 3 6 , when vacancies were created as a result of Von Ossietzky's candidature. Thallaug, established as an attorney at Lillehammer in the prosperous east central part of the country, has had an active career in politics and law. In politics his sympathies are definitely with the Right. He represented his constituency in the Storting uninterruptedly from 1 9 0 3 to 1 9 1 8 . In 1 9 0 4 he accompanied a Storting delegation to France in the interest of the peace cause, and in 1 9 0 8 he participated in the Inter-Parliamentary Conference at Berlin. The member latest added to the Committee is Gunnar Jahn ( 1 8 8 3 — ) , made a member in June of 1 9 3 7 . He is to serve for the remainder of Mowinckel's new term, that is, until 1 9 4 2 . For a brief interval in 1934-35, he was a member of Mowinckel's third ministry. Jahn entered upon his new duties without previous official contacts with the Nobel Committee or the Institute; he had been neither alternate, lecturer, nor counsellor. Yet he is not without experience in the technique of international cooperation. He has participated as a delegate in a number of international conferences, and from 1 9 2 7 to 1 9 3 0 he was a member of the League of Nations Economic Committee. By training and profession Jahn is a statistician. He has long been connected with Norway's foremost statistical service, the Central Statistical Bureau, serving as its secretary from 1 9 1 1 to 1 9 1 7 , and as its president since 1 9 2 0 . His initiative and fresh approach to problems in this field 24 have been well recognized abroad, and he was recently invited to serve as chairman of a 2 4 His most substantial published work is Statistikkens (Christiania, 1920; 3d ed. 1937).

Teknikk

og

Metode

PERSONNEL OF THE COMMITTEE committee to reorganize L'Institut international de whose work has been "somewhat uneven." JOHAN LUDWIG

221 statistique,

MOWINCKEL

Among the present or recent members of the Committee, who have long periods of service to their credit, the careers of Koht and Hanssen have already been discussed.25 Here we have to give attention to three other veterans, namely, Mowinckel, Stang, and Lange. Johan Ludwig Mowinckel (1870—) comes of a familylong settled at Bergen, whose antecedents are partly Hanoverian. Its interests have been first and foremost maritime in character. In 1898 the present head of the family established his own shipping company. He has represented his Bergen constituency in the Storting during the major part of a thirty-year period: specifically from 1906 to 1909, from 1913 to 1918, and after 1922. Mowinckel served as Speaker in 1916-18 and held a Cabinet position in 1921-22. As the recognized leader of the Left he was Prime Minister no less than three times, in 1924-26, 1928-31, and 1933-35. Mowinckel became positively interested in the peace cause during the War. Almost at the outset of hostilities, he took the lead in organizing a compulsory mutual insurance venture which undertook to cover war losses to Norwegian shipping. In 1915, as we have seen,26 he became chairman of the Storting's branch of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, a position which he retained until the year of his first premiership. In 1917-18 he was chairman of the Storting's committee on foreign affairs. When the time came, he was active in the agitation for a League of Nations. During the period when Norway had a seat on the League Council (1930-33) Mowinckel had occasion in 1931 and again in 1933 to represent his country on that exalted body. As it happened to be Norway's turn to preside over the Council when the -5 Supra, pp. 51-54, 6^69.

24

Supra, p. 115.

222

P E R S O N N E L OF T H E

COMMITTEE

Assembly gathered in 1933, it fell to Mowinckel to open the Assembly's fourteenth regular session. On that occasion he spoke with more than customary seriousness and conviction of the efforts yet necessary to build up a tradition of effective cooperation in international affairs. Mowinckel became a member of the Nobel Committee in 1925, being elected to fill the place left vacant by Konow. Reëlected for the term 1937-42, he resigned in November, 1936, before his old term was quite completed. His successor, chosen in midsummer of 1937, is Gunnar Jahn. FREDRIK

STANG

Fredrik Stang (1867—) comes of a family, one might almost say of a dynasty, that is distinguished for its service in Norwegian public life. His grandfather, bearing the same name, headed two ministries (1845-56, 1861-80) in the days before the procedures of cabinet responsibility had been established. Following that transition, his father, Emil Stang (1834-1912), consolidated the party of the Right and helped to reconcile it to the new order, heading its first two ministries (1889-91, 18939 5 ) . The grandson has been less consistently active in politics, though he had a respectable share in that partial rejuvenation of the Right which marked the decade after 1905. Becoming a member of its central committee in 1906, he served as the party's chairman from 1908 to 1911. He represented a Christiania constituency in the Storting for the term 1906-9 and in a cabinet of the Right served a short period (1912-13) as Minister of Justice. 27

In the main, however, Stang's talents have been devoted chiefly to the academic and cultural life of his country. Coming of his lineage, it was almost a foregone conclusion that he should devote himself to the law. After additional studies abroad and some practical experience, he became in 1897 pro" W. Keilhau, "Politikere I I : Fredrik S t a n g , " Samtiden, cf. Akademisk Revy, 1921, p. 68.

Vol. X X I V , pp. 614-22;

P E R S O N N E L OF T H E COMMITTEE

223

fessor of jurisprudence at the University. From this position he retired in 1932. He has written many expositions on legal and constitutional questions, his style being marked by a simplicity and freshness traditionally lacking in the field of legal discourse. His interest has run especially to the law of property and damages. His approach is sociological, and he has championed the validity of the comparative method.28 A juridical matter of special interest to him has been the effort to bring more uniformity into the legal systems of the Scandinavian countries. He has been active in the frequent congresses of Scandinavian jurists, now and then as chairman, and since the death of Hagerup in 1921 he has been editor of a legal periodical whose editorial support is more or less broadly Scandinavian.29 Stang belongs, of course, to that party of the Right which his father and his grandfather both served so illustriously. And with access to much first-hand knowledge, based often on personal sources of information, he has been able to shed additional light upon the inner history of the party's affairs a generation or more ago.30 From this it seems clear that even the Right, during the great constitutional struggles of the eighties, was not always as unsympathetic with popular causes as its opponents were able to make the people believe. In some respects Stang is hardly a good conservative; to speak more accurately, he is that somewhat rare individual, the socially enlightened conservative. His conservatism is one that appreciates not only that concessions have to be made to the forces of change, but also that they have to be made in time, which may be even more important. His intellectual orientation is founded upon the conviction that truth, as we have to work with it, is at bottom relative.31 Hence, his attitude is marked by a resilient, and, one might add, a chivalrous quality. His interest 28

Cf. Fredrik Stang et al., Rett og Sam fund (Oslo, 1931), pp. 5-21. Tidsskrift for Retsviderukab, New Series (1922—). a» Cf. Samtiden, Vol. XXVI, pp. 269-96, 509-49; Vol. XXVII, pp. 375-415. « Samtiden, Vol. XXVIII, p. 95.

29

224

P E R S O N N E L OF T H E

COMMITTEE

in tolerance and intellectual liberty is positive, and Keilhau calls him something of a Gladstonian liberal. 32 He has on occasion opposed literary censorship, or favored positive governmental mediation in disputes between capital and labor. Unlike some conservatives, Stang is no worshipper of the modern state. He finds in the state no exalted mystical authority, entitled to make irrevocable claims upon man's morality, even (as in the totalitarian state) upon his religion. The state, as he sees it, is composed only of the men adhering to it, and its purpose is not to sacrifice them but to serve them.33 Stang has become something of a specialist in the administrative p r o b l e m s of organized research. H e h a s been conncctcd in

various ways with half a dozen research foundations or institutions. He was rector of the University—its official head—from 1921 to 1927. From 1918 to 1932 he was one of the administrators of the Nansen Research Fund, and since 1922 he has been similarly connected with a research fund of 3,000,000 kroner which he was instrumental in having set aside from the resources of an insurance venture organized during the War to reduce the losses on Norwegian shipping.34 His most striking efforts in this field, however, are associated with the State's Research Fund, which came into existence in 1919 with a capital of 3,000,000 kroner. This foundation took its point of departure from a lecture that Stang delivered in 1917, and he is naturally one of the directors. Largely because of his efforts, also, this foundation has launched a research venture called The Institute of Comparative Culture, of which Stang is chairman. 35 Finally, he is the chairman of the Nobel Committee, having served as such since 1922. 82 Samtiden, ss Samtiden,

Vol. X X I V , p. 619. Vol. X X V I I I , p. 159.

34 35

A / S Norsk Varekrigsforsikring. Cf. infra, pp. 284-85.

P E R S O N N E L OF T H E COMMITTEE

225

C H R . L . LANGE

Christian Lous Lange (1869—) 36 has been a member of the Committee only since 1934, but in a sense he represents continuity of tenure better than any of his colleagues. He was the Committee's Secretary in the early days—its first confidant, so to speak—and upon his withdrawal in 1909 he was made Honorary Counsellor in the history of the International Peace movement, in which capacity he served the Committee until 1933. Hence he knows from personal experience the problems that had to be faced and the difficulties that were resolved in the early formative period. Lange is a grandson of the distinguished C. C. A. Lange, historian and archivist of the mid-century period when nationalist (and romanticist) history were getting well under way. His father was an army man and engineer, but the son, like the grandfather, turned to bookish pursuits. Interested in history and modern languages, he early became proficient in the use of French and English. His political sympathies were Leftist: he approved the efforts of the workers to organize and in 1905 was active in the agitation for a republic. His faith in democracy —and it is a faith of unmistakable social democratic tinge— remained essentially undiminished37 after the World War and the upheavals attendant upon it. Lange was drawn into peace work somewhat casually. The first experience which gave him a positive interest in it came just at the close of the century. In 1899 the Inter-Parliamentary Union, as we have seen, was to meet in Christiania, and Lange was made secretary of the committee on arrangements. From this assignment he gained an insight into a field of work of which 56 Cf. J. Lftvland, "Christian Lous Lange," Folkejred, Vol. IV, January-February, 1920, pp. 1-2. " C h r . L. Lange, "Demokratiets Knee,*' Samtiden, Vol. XXXVIII, pp. 53645, 604-24.

226

P E R S O N N E L OF THE COMMITTEE

he previously had known little. His newly awakened interest was turned to permanent account the next year when the Nobel Committee selected him for its Secretary. Lange had prepared himself to be a teacher and continued for a time to supplement his peace activities with school work. His new duties consumed more and more time, however, and finally engaged all his attention when the Nobel Institute took shape and was placed under his charge. In 1909 came his big opportunity. At its Berlin meeting in 1908, the Inter-Parliamentary Union had undertaken a measure of reorganization—had established an executive committee, had transferred die seat of its Bureau from Berne to Brussels, and had decided to maintain a salaried Secretary-General in the place of Dr. Gobat, who had served as secretary without salary. For this position it selected Lange, who thus found it necessary to give up his Secretaryship of the Nobel Committee. The choice of the Union—there had been five candidates, a Netherlander receiving three votes, a Belgian five and Lange twelve 38 —was undoubtedly a recognition of Lange's substantial merits and his aptitude for the position. Beyond that, some may have found the choice additionally gratifying—whether or not it was in any measure so intended—as a tribute to the consistent support which Norway had given to the peace cause for nearly two decades. Lange's appointment brought fresh and lasting impulses to the Union and its Bureau.38 At the clearing center of this international organization there was vital need for an executive of his commanding personality and of his infinite capacity for work. And infinite was the amount of work to be done—arranging matters to be taken up by the Bureau, editing reports of the work done in Conferences, serving as liaison officer through corre3» 0rebladet, April 21, 1909. Cf. L. Moltesen, "Ved Dr. Chr. L. Lange's Afgang som den interparlamentariske Unions Generalsekretär," Nordisk Tidsshift for international Ret, Vol. IV, pp. 237-40. 88

P E R S O N N E L OF T H E C O M M I T T E E

227

spondence and personal visits between the Bureau headquarters and the local branches in the individual national parliaments, and keeping an alert eye upon the larger developments of the peace movement everywhere. About the time of Lange's appointment, also, the Union moved onto a much securer financial basis, since Britain took the lead in imitating Norway's traditional practice of appropriating public moneys for the expenses of the Union.40 The World War all but ended organizations like the InterParliamentary Union. But Lange managed to maintain a skeleton of the organization, moving the Bureau to his own home just outside of Christiania for the duration of the War. It was most difficult to maintain any contact with the locals in belligerent countries, difficult even in the case of some of the neutral countries. Crippled as the Bureau's activities were, however, it proved possible to do some preparatory work on projects for a durable peace, to be considered once the conflict should reach an end.41 And once the hostilities were over it was possible, with surprising promptness, to get the work of the Union going again in some fashion on an international scale. Lange retired as Secretary-General of the Union in 1933. Fully as important to the peace eause as his work with the Nobel Committee and the Inter-Parliamentary Union have been his services as a writer and publicist. In addition to constant editorial work to be done for the Inter-Parliamentary Union, he has found time for much other writing. In several longer works he has treated international subjects historically. His history of internationalism is intended to run to three volumes, of which one appeared in 1919.42 He has also treated at some length Supra, p. 110. Cf. Chr. L. Lange, Les Conditions fune paix durable (Christiania, 1917), published also in German, English, Swedish, and Norwegian. 42 Histoire de Γinternationalisme, tome I, Jusqu'à la pax de Westpfudie 1648 (Christiania, 1919) ; cf. also his Mellemjolkelig Politik 1815-1914 (Swedish translation, Stockholm, 1924; Copenhagen, 1925). 11

228

PERSONNEL OF THE

COMMITTEE

the influence of the pacifist doctrine on international law.43 But it is especially by means of pamphlets and innumerable articles in newspapers and periodicals that Lange has most actively propagandized for the peace cause—reporting the work of the latest peace conference or meeting, giving short sketches of the historical progress of the peace movement, refuting the arguments of the militarists, or advancing the positive claims that give validity to the peace cause.44 Lange is an internationalist in the most valid sense of the term—in the sense that he fully and readily recognizes that nationalities, and even nationalisms, must continue to play an important part in human affaire. He understands that these are the

units which will make up the building blocks of the anticipated better world order. 45 The true antithesis of nationalism, he has said, is not internationalism but cosmopolitanism.46 However, Lange concedes that in its political phase nationalism must to some extent be contradicted by internationalism. Certain political machinery must be set up for the processes of arbitration, of investigation, and of conciliation, and some power of enforcement must be provided, preferably through progressive sanctions.47 The outlines of such an order began to assume reality when the League of Nations had been organized, and Lange became 43 "Histoire de la doctrine pacifique et de son influence sur le développement du droit international," Académie de droit international, Recueil des Cours, III (Paris, 1927), pp. 170-426. 41 A recent example of his popularizing discussions on the League and disarmament may be consulted in A. Midtb0, Fredsarbeidet, pp. 78-142. 45 Chr. L. Lange, Den europceiske Borgerkrig (Christiania, 1915), pp. 37-8, 59-60: Chr. L. Lange, "Nationale og internationale Idealer," Samtiden, Vol. XXI, pp. 55-64; cf. Papers on Inter-Racial Problems Communicated to the First Universal Races Congress (London, 1911), p. 123. 40 Chr. L. Lange, "Internationalisme," Les Prix Nobel en 1921-22, pp. 1-10, printed separately (Stockholm, 1924) and in Revue de Geneve, Vol. IX, pp. 378-90.

47

Chr. L. Lange, "Mellemfolkelige Retsmidler," Samtiden, Vol. XXVII, pp.

189-211.

PERSONNEL

OF T H E C O M M I T T E E

229

one of the most indefatigable spirits at work in the endeavor to make the League live up to its potentialities. The problem of disarmament in particular engaged his attention. With him it was an old problem, and he understood its complexity long before the League came into being. A full decade earlier he regretted that the Socialists in their demands had so hopelessly over-simplified it. 48 When the League formally settled down to wrestle with this question, Lange was well prepared to make a contribution. Together with Wellington Koo, he was entrusted by the First Assembly's Sixth Committee (the Committee on Disarmament) with the task of making a general statement to the Committee before it began its work. Lange worked untiringly on the armament problem, bringing it up for discussion in meetings, serving on committees and commissions, studying every angle of the problem for some sign of weakness, all in order to be prepared to seize, when it comes, the vital moment of a "protocol atmosphere" when something can be done. As he considers it, the League should have its disarmament plans fully worked out and filed away, like the mobilization plan of a general staff, ready to be called into use the moment the situation seems opportune. 49 The disarmament effort is not the only aspect of the peace work, he readily concedes, but it is perhaps the most important. It is not enough, he insists, that war be humanized—it must be suppressed. The vital point is to take the weapons out of the hands of "the neurasthenics." 50 At times his logic has been rather disconcerting. Thus, in a meeting of the General Commission of the Disarmament Conference, in March, 1933, he inquired, apropos of the British desire to reserve the right to bomb from the air " f o r police purposes in certain outlying regions," what the center was from which one measured 4 8 Chr. L. April 6 and 4 0 Chr. L. 50 ¡bid., p.

Lange, "Bekjaempelse av Krigen i Fredstid," SocUd-Demokraten, 20, 1909. Lange, "Avrustning," Samtiden, Vol. XXXVI, p. 429. 433.

230

P E R S O N N E L OF THE

COMMITTEE

an outlying region, and how could one be certain that such an outlying region might not turn out to be the center of a conflict.51 Time and again, in League meetings, he has returned to the disarmament question, either to discuss it in a general way or to plead for budgetary limitation,52 a procedure which he considered practical as early as the 1907 Hague Conference.53 In 1936 he was made chairman of the League Assembly's Third Committee (on Disarmament) which had not been constituted since 1931, in view of the general Disarmament Conference. Among the present members of the Nobel Committee Lange is preëminently the one who has made peace work a career and given it a l l his time. It was fitting enough that hie merits in this

regard should be recognized shortly after the War, when he was made co-recipient with Hjalmar Branting of the Nobel Peace Prize for 1921. After his retirement as Secretary-General of the Inter-Parliamentary Union he joined the Nobel Committee in 1934. Since that date, therefore, the Committee has been able to boast of a member (Bj0rnson received the prize for literature, not for peace) who knows not only how it feels to help come to a decision on an award, but also how it feels to entertain the coveted honor of the Nobel Peace Prize. 5 1 League of Nations, Conference for the Reduction and Limitation of Armaments, Geneva, 1932. Series B. Minutes of the General Commission, II, p. 368. 5 2 Cf. League of Nations, Records of the Fifth Assembly (1924), Meetings of Committees, Minutes of the Third Committee, p. 91. 5 3 Chr. L. Lange, "Den anden Haag-Konference og Afvsebningssp0rgsmaalet," Samtiden, Vol. XVIII, p. 185.

XVI

CANDIDATES AND PRIZE WINNERS F O R the purpose of most effectively carrying on its work, the Nobel Committee has adopted a few regulations of organization and procedure. According to the Statutes governing its procedure, the Committee selects one of its members as Chairman and another as Vice-Chairman. Both serve for one calendar year at a time, though reëlections are the rule. The present Chairman is Stang, and the Vice-Chairman is Hanssen. Assisting the Chairman is the Secretary, who is also the Director of the Institute. It is the function of the Chairman to call the meetings of the Committee and to arrange matters for presentation. Whenever he thinks some matter presses for action, he may call a special meeting, but the usual routine is for the Committee to meet twice a year, once in the spring, to make a provisional examination of the year's candidates, and once in the autumn, very probably toward the latter part of November, to adopt the annual budget and to take final action on the prize award for the year. 1 NOMINATIONS F O R T H E

PEACE

PRIZE:

HOW

CONSIDERED

How does one become a candidate for the Peace Prize? To some, it might seem to be only a simple matter of getting in touch with the Committee or the Institute. In actual fact, however, the procedure is in no wise so direct. The one thing which is worse than useless, as Article Seven of the basic Statutes makes clear, is to communicate directly with the Committee and propose one's own candidacy. Article Three carefully specifies that one becomes a candidate only after being formally proposed by someone eligible to make such a nomination. A person is eligible if 1

R. Moe, Le Prix Nobel de la paix et l'Institut Nobel norvégien, Vol. I, p. 72.

232

C A N D I D A T E S AND P R I Z E

WINNERS

he belongs to any one of seven clearly defined categories, as follows: first, present and former members of the Nobel Committee itself, together with counsellors at the Nobel Institute; second, members of ministries and national assemblies, including members of the Inter-Parliamentary Union; third, members of the Court of International Arbitration at The Hague; fourth, members of the executive body of the International Peace Bureau; fifth, members of the Institute of International Law (including Associates); sixth, university professors who lecture on political science, history, philosophy, or jurisprudence; finally, previous recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize. W e m a y follow a group of candidacies around a c a l e n d a r

year and see the steps through which they pass. Let us begin in the autumn. Under the auspicies of the Committee a list of those eligible to make nominations—belonging that is, to one or another of the categories listed above—is circularized without regard to country, in an endeavor to secure a wide and catholic set of nominations. The number of circulars thus dispatched is now in the vicinity of 800. 2 During the first thirty years of active Committee service, that is from 1901 to 1 9 3 0 inclusive, there were proposed a total of 332 candidates: 58 societies or institutions and 274 individuals, including 13 women. According to nationalities they were distributed thus: Americans (United States) 3 7 ; English, 3 5 ; French, 3 0 ; Germans, 2 4 ; Italians, 2 4 ; Swedes, 16; Swiss, 15; Latin Americans, 11; Belgians, 10; Austrians, 9 ; Russians, 9 ; Spaniards, 9 ; Norwegians, 8 ; Danes, 6 ; Netherlanders, 5 ; Poles, 5 ; Australians, 4 ; Czechs, 4. There was a scattering of lower numbers.3 Correlated with the years when they were submitted, the figures show, as one might expect, a definite falling off in the War period. The correlation is not a rigid one and some allowance has to be made for a time lag. 2 See the reports of the Committee in Part V of the annual Stortings handlinger. 3 R. Moe, op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 81-82.

For-

CANDIDATES

AND P R I Z E W I N N E R S

233

The drop was delayed a couple of years after the beginning of hostilities, and the return to a more normal figure was effective only some time after the War had ended. The high number was 5 1 in 1913, perhaps because in the previous year, for the first time, the Committee made no award of the Prize. The low figures were: 18 in 1917, 2 0 in 1918, 13 in 1919, 19 in 1920, 12 in 1921. In 1922 the figure rose to 35, and during the last few years the average range has been distinctly high. In 1 9 3 1 the figure was 43, and in the year following 4 2 . In 1933 it rose to 55, a record. The next year it was 50, but in 1935 it was only 3 8 / though it rose again in 1 9 3 6 to 46. The total number of communications proposing candidates has likewise increased sharply. In 1934 the figure was 103 and in 1935, 115, but in 1 9 3 6 it rose to 182. There is a rule—intended to assure a full and adequate study of the candidates nominated—that all nominations must be in the hands of the Committee by February 1 if they are to be considered for the Prize the following December. This regulation is overlooked occasionally by nominators and frequently by the public. It was called to mind by the dispatches from Oslo in November, 1935, which reported that there would be no award for this year. The intention, they explained, had been to award the prize to Prince Karl of Sweden in recognition of his work as head of the Swedish Red Cross, but a technicality had intervened, namely, that " K a r l had not been entered as a candidate for the prize before Feb. 1 . " 5 Such may or may not have been the case; press reports which seek to anticipate the Committee's announcements or to justify them have no claim to being considered as reliable. On occasion there has been outright demand that the rule be dispensed with. In 1 9 1 8 Hákon L0ken, who was enthusiastically supporting President Wilson's candidacy, advo4 The annual reports of the Nobel Committee appear in Part V of each session's Stortings Forhandlinger. What a nomination may look like the reader can see in C. Sundblad, Svensha Fredsrörelsens Historia, Vol. Ill, pp. 317-18. Cf. the New York Times, Nov. 20, 1935.

234

CANDIDATES AND PRIZE

WINNERS

cated a waiver of the rule on the ground that the Statute was never intended to bind the Committee so rigidly as to preclude consideration of candidacies that might become promising in the interval between the dead-line date and the date of the award. If the executors of the will permitted themselves to be hampered by technicalities of such minor import, he continued, they would cause Nobel to turn in his grave. 6 The nominations received are considered at the spring meeting of the Committee, which makes a preliminary examination to single out those to be given more careful consideration. These next become the object of special studies and research by the counsellors of the Institute and by the Secretary of the Committee. The results of these studies are edited by the Secretary for a private printing. 7 In this form, the studies are available for the deliberations of the Committee at its regular fall meeting, when the final decisions are taken. In the briefly worded special Statutes there is little to indicate what may guide the Committee in its deliberations upon candidates, little, that is, beyond Article Four, which laconically states that the Prize may be awarded also to institutions and societies. But in the basic Statutes of the Nobel Foundation are several clauses whose prescriptions must be taken into account by the Committee. For example, the passage in Nobel's will specifying that awards are to be made with an eye to meritorious works "of the past year" is interpreted by Article Two to mean that contributions of recent date shall be the basis for awards, though older works, it says, may be taken into account if their significance has recently become evident (a qualification that has occasioned much criticism). Article Four says that a prize may be divided between two accomplishments, and specifies that β

Hikon L0ken, writing in Norges Handels- og Sjtfartstidende, Dec. 15, 1918. That Nobel himself had meant to allow a certain discretionary latitude in the interpretation of his intentions had been the opinion of one of the witnesses to his will. C. Lindhagen, Carl Lindhagens Memoarer, Vol. I, p. 257. 7 Cf. supra, p. 168.

CANDIDATES AND P R I Z E W I N N E R S

235

if some work of two or several individuals is rewarded the prize shall be made a joint award. No prize may be awarded to persons deceased, but if death intervenes between the submission of the nomination and the decision for the year the prize may go to the work under consideration.8 No work is to be rewarded, says Article Five, if it is not of the distinguished rank and character which the testator had in mind. The Committee may at its discretion award the Prize rather infrequently, but the Statutes insist that it must make an award once within each five-year period, counting from 1901. To date the Committee has seen fit to omit awards and reserve the prize money on no less than fourteen occasions; * in six of these instances the prizes reserved were awarded the year following.10 In case there is no award the second time, the basic Statutes of the Nobel Foundation allow each prize-awarding group an option in the disposal of the prize money of undistributed reserved prizes. Prior to 1934, a prize-awarding group might by a three-fourths vote resolve that such prize money should be added to the group's Special Fund; failing this, the money would revert to the Foundation's Principal Fund. But an amendment of November 9, 1934, specifies that when a reserved prize is unawarded for the second time, its prize money may by a four-fifths vote of the awarding body concerned—in our case the Storting's Nobel Committee—be added to the awarding body's Special Fund, to the extent of two-thirds of the amount of the prize money; in the absence of such action the whole sum reverts to the Principal Fund of the Foundation. Another matter of procedure was clarified at the same time by the adoption of an amendment to Article Seven of the basic Statutes, 8 One writer suggested, quite on his own responsibility, one may be sure, that the omission of an award in 1924 was probably due to the death of E. D. Morel, whom this writer thought had been a serious candidate. Verden Venter, December, 1924, p. 85. "In 1912, 1914, 1915, 1916, 1918, 1919, 1923, 1924, 1925, 1928, 1929, 1932, 1933, and 1935. io That is, the prizes for 1912, 1919, 1925, 1929, 1933, and 1935.

236

CANDIDATES

AND PRIZE

WINNERS

specifying that whenever a prize-awarding group has two prizes at its disposal it shall award the prize for the current year before it may proceed to dispose of the reserved prize, that is, the previous year's. ANNOUNCEMENT

OF T H E

PRIZE

WINNERS

Once the Committee has made its decision, it may keep the name of the winner secret until the 10th of December, when the award is formally made. In this connection, the Swedish press, in the early years, was not a little irked and irritated. As the news reached the outside world, there were circumstances which seemed to leave Sweden with a very subordinate rôle in the prize-awarding ceremonies. Foreigners at times received the impression that all the Nobel prizes were awarded at Christiania. Several circumstances contributed to this impression. For one thing, while the festivities at Stockholm took place in the afternoon, the ceremony at Christiania was usually held in the forenoon. Then too, the Norwegians were more successful than the Swedes in keeping secret the names of their prize winners. The result was that correspondents of the world press could report in full the morning ceremonies at Christiania and, having some idea of the winners to be rewarded at Stockholm, could add brief notes of the awards there as well. Again, compositors in foreign pressrooms, getting the early dispatches under a Christiania date line, might place the later ones in the same column. The Swedish news services were also partly to blame. It was difficult to get lengthy dispatches to the morning papers abroad, while ordinary news telegrams to the outside were routed by way of a news bureau in Copenhagen. 11 In any event, the world press often got a poor description of the festivities at Stockholm, and throughout the first decade the Swed1 1 "Nobelhemlighetsmakeriet en Skada for Sverge," Dagens Nyheter (Stockholm), Dec. 12, 1906; "Svensk Nobel-Jalousi overfor Norge," Dagbladet, Dec. 12, 1906.

CANDIDATES AND PRIZE W I N N E R S

237

ish press continued to express occasional irritation. 12 It may be noted that Article Nine of the basic Statutes was modified in 1910 to permit each awarding body to make public its decision earlier than December 10, an option which the Swedish bodies have used quite freely. The Storting's Committee, on the other hand, has often 18 preferred to capitalize the elements of secrecy and surprise by waiting to announce the prize winner on the day of the ceremonies of award. By and large the Committee has done well in avoiding the vigilance of the press; the latter in some of its last-minute guesses has been wide of the facts. In November, 1936, for instance, one of the Oslo morning dailies gave evidence of premature zeal when, in its issue for the day on which the Committee announced its awards, it pretended to know with some certainty that awards were to go to Von Ossietzky and to the Nansen Bureau. 14 While the Committee's deliberations and votes on candidates remain confidential, it has happened that the press has reported the Committee's decision to be unanimous (its information may or may not have been correct), as in the case of the award to the International Committee of the Red Cross.15 THE CEREMONY OF AWARD

When the Committee's deliberations have resulted in a decision to award the Prize, the ceremony of award takes place, according to Article Nine of the basic Statutes, on the ensuing 10th of December, the anniversary of Nobel's death. The cereCf. Aftenposten, June 3, 1908. Sometimes, however, as in 1930, 1936, and 1937, the winners have been announced before the end of November. The Baroness Bertha von Suttner has related how near she came to unwittingly refusing the Prize. The letter of notification was addressed to her at Berlin, but she had moved on to Wiesbaden; the forwarding entailed a charge whose payment the Baroness, unaware of the letter's contents, was on the point of refusing. Caroline E. Playne, Bertha von Suttner and. the Struggle to Avert the World War (London, 1936), p. 148. 14 Tidens Tegn, Nov. 24, 1936; cf. Arbeide Bladet, Nov. 17, 1937. 15 Aftenposten, Dec. 10, 1917, p. 2. 12 13

238

C A N D I D A T E S AND P R I Z E

WINNERS

mony is attended by a distinguished gathering, most frequently including some members of the royal family,16 various cabinet members, Storting representatives, and members of the diplomatic corps, together with representatives of the academic world, of the press, of the arts, of the peace movement, and of other fields of public endeavor. The Chairman of the Committee announces the prize winner and presents to him, or if he be not present, to some proxy, usually the diplomatic representative of his country, a certificate of the award and a Peace Prize Gold Medal. The sum awarded has varied considerably. Before the War it fluctuated between some 138,000 and 150,000 kroner. Then for several years it slumped badly, reaching its lowest in 1923 at slightly less than 115,000 kroner. But in the later twenties it jumped phenomenally—certain tax burdens were lightened— and came to exceed more than 170,000 kroner from 1929 to 1 9 3 2 . " The certificate of award has been designed by the Norwegian artist Gerhard Munthe. As presented to the prize winner, it is enclosed in a specially designed case. The Gold Medal is cast according to a model cut by the renowned Oslo sculptor, Gustav Vigeland.18 On the obverse side of the medal is a likeness of Nobel with the inscription A L F R » N O B E L - N A T · MDCCCXXXIII · OB · MDCCCXCVI; on the reverse is a design of three men joined in the embrace of brotherhood with the inscription P R O • P A C E · E T · F R A T E R N I T A T E · G E N T I U M . Around the edge of the medal appear the words Parlamentum Norvegiae 19 and the name of the prize winner. 1 6 Present at the initial ceremony in 1901 were Prince Karl and Princess Ingeborg of Sweden. " R. Moe, op. ciL, Vol. I, pp. 51-52. 1 8 Vi gel and'» stupendous sculptural project at Frogner Park on the outskirts of Oslo, so liberally subsidized by his municipality and so impatiently awaited by thousands of art lovers in the north, is now well enough under way to justify hopes of its completion within a few years. 1 8 For illustrations of the medal see Les Prix Nobel en 1901, pp. 88-89; R. Moe, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 79.

CANDIDATES AND PRIZE W I N N E R S

239

In the early years the ceremony of award was held in the chambers of the Storting. By 1905, however, the Nobel Institute had its own building, and it was decided to have the ceremony in the Assembly Hall of the Institute. This change was not made without some protest. One Storting representative observed that, after all, it was the Storting which was to award the Peace Prize. He could see no reason for the change of scene now proposed. The chairman informed him that this year the 10th of December came on a Sunday, when the Storting was not in session. Moreover, he pointed out that the occasion seemed a favorable one for dedicating the Institute's new building. Bernhard Hanssen was among those who felt that for this special occasion the proposed arrangement was a fitting one. But few or possibly none at this time thought of the change as permanent.20 Yet so it turned out to be. One circumstance in particular helped to confirm the change, namely, the fact that the Storting by 1908 had returned to the practice of opening its regular session not in the late fall, as had been the procedure since 1898, but after the New Year season, hence after the Peace Prize had been awarded in December. On two later occasions —in 1906 and in 1920—the ceremony was again assigned to the Storting, but the usual procedure was to employ the Institute's Assembly Hall. In recent years there has been more and more demand for having the ceremony shifted to larger quarters: for example, one of the University halls. In part this request has been associated with the desire to bring the popular peace work into closer touch with the Nobel agencies. The occasion of these ceremonies, observed one commentator in 1927, ought to be used to propagandize for the peace cause by accommodating as large a public as possible; the Nobel Committee, he affirmed, was no private affair—"so far as I am aware the Norwegian Storting as such is 'directly interested in the under20

Cf. Stortings Forhandlinger, 1905-6, VII, 322-23.

240

CANDIDATES

AND PRIZE

WINNERS

taking.' " 21 In recent years a number of Nobel lectures, among them those of Nansen, Branting, Stresemann, and Sir Norman Angeli have been delivered at a University hall. In 1 9 3 4 arrangements were first made to have Arthur Henderson deliver his lecture at the Assembly Hall of the Institute, but at the last moment the affair was shifted to more commodious quarters at the University. 22 In the course of thirty-seven years the Committee has awarded the Peace Prize a total of twenty-nine times, dividing it between two individuals on no less than eleven occasions. Altogether there have been forty recipients—-thirty-five men, two women, and three institutions. Classifying the individual recipients according to nationality, we find that the United States ranks highest with seven, France is a close second with six, while England, in spite of the lead Anglo-Saxons have taken in the peace movement, has only five. There have been three each from Sweden, Switzerland, and Germany, and two each from Austria, Belgium, and Norway. Several states, of course, are represented by only one citizen. Brief biographies of the prize winners for each year appear in the annual report of the Nobel Foundation. 23 PRESENTATION S P E E C H E S AND NOBEL ADDRESSES

At each ceremony of award the presentation has been accompanied by an appropriate address, most frequently delivered by the Chairman or some other member of the Committee. Sometimes it has been given by the Secretary; once in a while, in the early years, it was given by a Speaker of the Storting. A cursory examination of these speeches will show a certain Dagbladet, Dec. 16, 1927, p. 4. Cf. Morgenbladet, Dec. 12, 1934. 23 Les Prix Nobel en 1901—. See also Victor Junk, Die Nobelpreisträger Dreissig Jahre Nobelstiftung (Vienna/Leipzig, 1930). Ragnvald Moe has promised similar data in the projected second volume of his Le Prix Nobel de la paix et l'Institut Nobel norvégien. 21

22

CANDIDATES

AND P R I Z E W I N N E R S

241

contrast between some of the attitudes expressed in the early years and those voiced more recently. Naturally, an everrecurring topic in these addresses has been the matter of interesting people at large in the peace cause. In the early years, speakers like Berner and L,0vland dwelt upon the urgent need of getting the masses of men interested in the peace movement, to the end that these in turn might exert pressure upon the governments and national assemblies (thus substantiating the endeavors of the local branches of the Inter-Parliamentary Union). The idea was that these public authorities would respond to popular pressure and take official and practical steps to consolidate the aims of peace. 24 Such a faith in the peaceful propensities of the masses seems to have been proven premature, however, especially since the experiences of the World War. The new note is rather one in which there is appreciation of the fact that the masses too can be bellicose enough in their basic impulses. The menace of war, as Stang has put it, springs not only from those in political authority but also from men as men, that is, from the instincts of men in the herd. 25 The peace movement must continue its work to enlist the support of the masses, but it must also appreciate that it is not sufficient to trust alone the natural impulses of men at large. Peace endeavors have to combat first and foremost certain deep-lying tendencies in the very nature of man, together with the traditions of war associated with the cult of nationalism and manifest in many of our schoolbooks, our ideals of play, our national songs. 28 In other words, the peace forces must be cognizant of the fact that the task of popular enlightenment which they face is of far greater complexity and magnitude than the task the previous generation thought would suffice. Turning from the speeches made by those representing the 24 25 28

Dagbladet, Dec. 10, 1903; Stortings Forhandlinger, Les Prix Nobel en 1927, p. 64. Les Prix Nobel en 1930, p. 81 et seq.

1903-4, VII, 519.

242

CANDIDATES AND PRIZE

WINNERS

Committee, we may look for a moment to speeches by the prize winners. The recipient of a Nobel prize becomes obligated to come to Oslo—to Stockholm in the case of the other four prizes —to give a lecture in the field of endeavor in which he has been honored. This obligation is to be discharged within six months after the award, according to Article Nine of the basic Statutes, but the fact is that it has been fulfilled only in varying degree. Some prize winners have been very prompt; others have never come to Oslo at all. Arnoldson gave his lecture on the day of the award, Söderblom and Henderson gave theirs a day later, Lange delivered his three days later, and Nansen gave his nine days afterward. Cremer waited fully a year, Ducommun and Moneta more than a year and a half. The largest number have given their lectures in the spring or early summer following the award, this being true of Baroness Bertha von Suttner, 27 Renault, Bajer, Branting, Stresemann, and Sir Norman Angeli. We may dwell for a moment upon the most distinguished American recipient to fulfil this obligation. Theodore Roosevelt received the prize in 1906 and did not give his lecture before 1910. For good and sufficient reasons, he could hardly have fulfilled the obligation before his presidential term expired in 1909. Then came his big-game hunting trip to Africa, followed by a tour of various European centers. In conjunction with this tour, the former President arranged to come to the Norwegian capital, which naturally gave him a rousing reception.28 To some Norwegians the visit seemed, quite apart from its official intentions, a clear manifestation of the fact that newly independent Norway was by no means so diplomatically isolated as some had feared. 29 The former President delivered his Peace 27 The Baroness has left a description of her visit to the Norwegian capital. Cf. Caroline E. Playne, op. cit., pp. 149-51. 28 For some particulars of the visit see the writer's "When Oslo Fêted Theodore Roosevelt as the Winner of the Nobel Peace Prize," Nordisk Tidende (Brooklyn), Magasinet, May 9, 1935, pp. 12-13. 29 Cf. supra, p. 99.

CANDIDATES AND P R I Z E W I N N E R S

243

Prize address on the 5th of May, 1910. He began by emphasizing that there were higher values than peace, important as that was—values such as justice, for instance, or virtue. He then proceeded to outline certain practical steps which, he thought, should be taken to consolidate peace: first, the signing of treaties embodying the wider adoption of the arbitration principle; second, further development of the Hague Court; third, decisive steps to limit armaments; and fourth, the formation of a Peace League among the states—the latter by far the most arresting item of his address.80 We have now surveyed at some length the personnel and the work of the Norwegian Nobel Institute and the Nobel Committee. In Part Five we may look to some of the criticism that has been made of their work, and then try to get a final characterization of their activities in relation to the Norwegian background. 30 Cf. Theodore Roosevelt, "International Peace," The Outlook, Vol. XCV (1910), pp. 19-21.

PART FIVE CENSURE AND

APPRAISAL

XVII

CRITICISM, SPECIFIC AND GENERAL F E W are impervious to criticism and able to face the estimates of fellow men with complete nonchalance. They may pretend to be unaffected by laudatory or condemnatory comment, but the chances are that, to some slight degree at least, the reverse is the case. To a certain extent this is also true of a group of men which bears a collective responsibility for an organization or an institution. Criticism, that is, becomes a part of "the background" against which any public trust or foundation carries on its duties. In this chapter we shall take account of some of the criticisms that have been made of the Nobel Committee and the Institute, confining our attention chiefly to opinion of local or Scandinavian origin, though paying attention once in a while to comments further afield. Human nature being what it is—rather taciturn or negligent about voicing praise and free enough in expressing adverse opinions—it is not odd that a good deal of comment and criticism has in the course of years been directed against the Nobel Committee and the Institute. At the very outset, the Committee was greeted none too sympathetically—for instance, by the cartoonists and comic writers.1 Complaint has been made of the Committee's general point of view, but most frequently the comment has concerned the choice of the prize winners. There have naturally been many with gratuitous advice to give on the disposal of the Peace Prize, and some have taken the trouble to present their opinion in high places. King Haakon once let it 1 Cf. "En 'nobel* Fredskonkurrance," Korsaren, Jan. 14, 1897, p. 5 ; "Dragen, der vogter paa Skatten," Vikingen, Aug. 21, 1897; Tyrihans, Dec. 20, 1901, pp. 307-8.

248

CRITICISM

be known in an interview that months before the date of a particular award he had received "hundreds of letters from all parts of the world, offering good advice on the distribution." 2 DIVISION

OF

PRIZES

AND

OMISSION

OF

AWARDS

One of the first matters to draw a fire of criticism was the practice of dividing a year's prize between two recipients. A comic medium attributed this happy thought to John Lund, unkindly remarking that by this means he had been able to favor also his old friend Passy. 3 General opinion conceded that something might be said for the practice, for there were a number of worthy candidates who were advanced in years and if passed over might not live to be considered a second time. Dunant, for example, was seventy-three in 1901, and Passy was seventynine. After the first two awards, which were divided, came several single awards. Then the practice was resumed; there were divided awards in 1907, 1908, 1909, and 1911. 4 Again there was a fire of criticism. The practice, said one, tended to diminish the prestige and value of the Prize ; what is more, Nobel had hardly intended such divisions to become the r u l e / L0vland as chairman explained that there had been a reluctance to pass by candidates of equal claims. Furthermore, he reminded the critic, it was the general opinion in Europe that the Prize was "too h i g h . " 9 Half facetiously, one fears, the critic just referred to inquired whether the Committee's liberality would not eventually entail a " s h o r t a g e " of candidates. L0vland parried this by calling attention to the basic Statutes, which permitted grants to be made as infrequently as once every five years, in the event that such 2 Ajtenposten, F e b . 25, 1907. a " U l v i Faareklteder," Korsaren, Sept. 29, 1904. 4 S i n c e the War the Prize has been divided five times, in 1921, 1925, 1926, 1927, and 1931. 5 Dagsavisen, Dec. 15, 1909. *0rebladet, Dec. 29, 1908.

CRITICISM

249

a shortage should ensue. It would seem that the Committee was acting freely in the matter and was moved by no feeling that it must make an award each year. At any rate, the Committee's Secretary observed as early as 1907 that the prestige of the Prize would rise if it were not too frequently distributed. It would ill serve the reputation of the Prize, he remarked, to reward someone unworthy of it merely because he seemed the best in a meager herd, 7 and because it was felt that an award had to be made regularly. Yet in 1912 the fear, real or fancied, that there could be a "shortage" of candidates seemed on the point of being realized. After an uninterrupted series of designations the Committee decided to omit the award. But the reasons were hardly to be sought in any "shortage." They may have been related partly to some formal insufficiency in the candidacies as presented. Some observers could not help but think, however, of the current international situation, that as a sequel to the Italo-Turkish War of 1911-12 had come the first Balkan War late in 1912. As some saw it, these wars provided no very favorable atmosphere for the distribution of a peace prize. But to those who inferred that factors of this sort had influenced the Committee's decision, the Chairman replied with a denial. In this case, as in other similar attempts to determine the considerations that have brought the Committee to its decisions, one can only say that such attempts have no better substantiation than assumption and conjecture. Because of the Italo-Turkish War the Committee had been importuned in 1911, by left-wing and Socialist circles especially, to withhold the prize and thus demonstrate against the use of "the mailed fist" by a country that had signed an arbitration treaty in 1895, yet was now being defended in its course, in the name of culture, by Moneta, himself a recipient of the Prize 7

Chr. L. Lange, "The Future of the Norwegian Nobel Institute," The pendent, Vol. L X n , p. 1062.

Inde-

250

CRITICISM

(in 1907).® The organ of the Social Democrats also favored this course ' though it later expressed approval of the suggestion, reported to have been made by Branting, that the Prize go to the International Socialist Bureau in Brussels. The Swedish Socialist organ took the view that the Prize might well be given the person who had protested most against the Turkish War. Over on the Right, sentiment was rather that there should be no interruption of normal processes; it would be manifestly unfair, according to one opinion, to withhold the Prize if some candidate worthy of it had been properly considered. 10 In the end, the prize for the year was divided between two candidates. T h e next year, a f t e r the first B a l k a n W a r h a d broken out,

there was more point to debate on the issue, and for the first time, as we have said, the Committee omitted an award. This omission hardly satisfied all critics. One commentator thought the action ill-advised, in so far as it was based (which it may not have been) on the reasoning that no one had succeeded in averting the current war. After all, he argued, wars were in progress a good deal of the time, and to act on the basis referred to might mean that the Prize would be given out very seldom, "perhaps never." 11 The Socialists, as before, would have approved an award to the International Socialist Bureau at Bruss e l s . " By way of recognizing some of the criticism, L0vland repeated that the Committee had no way of demonstrating against hostilities save by rewarding peace work. He explained that none of the year's candidates had seemed to meet the conditions set; had any of them done so, the Committee would have been bound to make an award, without regard to the ItaloTurkish War. 13 8

Norske Intelligenssedler, Nov. 16, 1911.; cf. also the issue for Nov. 24. Social-Demokraten, Dec. 6 and 12, 1911. 10 Morgenbladet, Nov. 16, 1911. 11 Nord Norge (TromsfO, Dec. 16, 1912. 12 Norske Intelligenssedler, Dec. 12, 1912; Social-Demokraten, 1912, No. 294, p. 3. 13 Morgenbladet, Dec. 10, 1912. 9

CRITICISM

251

There was, of course, no real objection to the omission of awards while the Great War raged, for that cataclysm seemed to be the negation of everything for which the Peace Prize stood. But the question was raised by Castberg whether the accumulating prize money might not be used to organize the preliminaries of the negotiations that would have to be undertaken when the War some day came to an end. 14 In the post-War years the successive withholdings of the Prize in 1923, 1924, and 1925 awakened new dissatisfaction. Some argued that Nobel had intended that the Prize should be given each year; at any rate he had not meant that omissions should become the rule. He had wanted his Prize to be a reward for idealistic peace work, not a distinction with which to honor statesmen and diplomats when the occasion offered and they happened to be momentarily popular. 15 Becoming somewhat caustic, Bonnevie, as President of Norway's Peace Union, remarked that Nobel had hardly contemplated an elegant institution (the Nobel Institute) with its library, and its staff of "committee members, secretaries, alternates and counsellors"; it must not be forgotten that these existed for the Peace Prize, not the Peace Prize for these.18 In 1934 he returned to the attack, this time on the floor of the Storting. The omission of the prize in 1933, he said, had been a very deep disappointment. It seemed almost as if, in this day of dictatorship and rejuvenated armament rivalry, the Committee was prepared to declare lost beforehand the battle being waged by the friends of peace and disarmament. 17 14 15 18

17

Stortings Forhandlinger, 1918, VII, 2067-6«. Dagbladet, Dec. 8, 1925, p. 2 ; Dec. 1, 1926, p. 4. Carl Bonnevie, " N o b e l F r e d s p r i s e n , " Dagbladet, Dec. 1, 1926. Stortings Forhandlinger, 1934, VII a, 987.

252

CRITICISM HONORING PROFESSIONAL

PEACE

WORKERS:

B A J E R , ARNOLDSON, AND VON OSSIETZKY

Apt to be criticized when it fails to make awards, the Committee is almost certain to hear voices of disapproval when it does make them. There are always those who are ready to maintain that someone other than the person chosen should have been honored. The awarding of the prizes, wrote a Bergen paper in 1908, was being stripped of the "ideality" that ought to surround it. Ever more strenuous and forced grew the hunt for suitable "oldsters" and when, among those available, the most innocuous were selected, there was a din of d i s a p p r o v a l

from

those who claimed injustice, neglect, selfish considerations, and the like, on the part of the grantors. 18 It may be said that the Committee has met relatively less criticism than otherwise when it has chosen to honor professional peace workers—workers who have given the major part of their time to the promotion of the ideals of peace. An exception, perhaps, was the joint award in 1 9 0 8 to Arnoldson and Bajer, the Swedish and Danish peace workers, whose candidacies occasioned no little comment in 1 9 0 7 as well as in 1 9 0 8 . Since both men have been brought into our story from time to time, we may stop to see something of the discussion which their candidacies provoked. In certain quarters their candidacies were quite popular, for in all three of the Northern countries there were some who had begun to feel that the Committee was being unnecessarily modest about rewarding Scandinavian candidates. It was, said Politiken in Copenhagen, almost as if the Committee felt obliged to ferret out obscure men in remote parts, whose names were unknown to the average person. 19 When Bajer and Arnoldson were passed by in 1907, the organ of the Social Democrats in 18 19

Morgenavisen, Dec. 16, 1908. Norske ¡ntelligenssedler, Dec. 12, 1907.

CRITICISM

253

Stockholm suspected that the choice made—of the Frenchman Renault—was a link in Norwegian foreign policy, 20 a complement, that is, to the Integrity Treaty of that year. But if the Committee evoked some grumbling when it failed to honor Bajer and Arnoldson in 1907, it evoked even more when it did proceed to honor them in 1908. In Sweden, Stockholms Dagblad and Heisingborgsposten disapproved heartily of the honor shown their countryman Arnoldson, who in the calamitous year 1905 had sympathized with Norway and, as they put it, had spoken and written against his own country. The award was " a bloody outrage against Sweden." By means of the Peace Prize, it was said, the Norwegians had taken the opportunity to insult Sweden and "dishonor every Swedish man who takes pride in his national honor." As if to give the insult an added touch of finesse, they had done it with "Swedish money" placed in their care by a Swedish countryman. 21 This thrust about "Swedish money," which now and then slipped into some of the Swedish papers," drew a quick reply in Norway. On this occasion the authors were reminded that Nobel had assigned only one-fifth of the income of his money to Norway, but had given that fifth on conditions that justified no later Swedish interference with it.2S L0vland as Chairman explained to one of the Swedish papers that Arnoldson's candidacy had been supported by the unanimous vote of the Swedish group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. For his pains, he drew the retort that this did not alter the situation. Let him not be duped into thinking that the InterParliamentary group represented the Swedish people at large. His disclosure, the Swedish writer went on, rather substantiated what had been said of a "national decadence" abroad in the land. Had such a decadence never existed, the writer continued, 20

Ajtenposten, Dec. 11, 1907. NoTske Intelligent sedler, Dec. 12, 1908. 22 Cf. "Slet Hum0r," Morgenbladet, Dec. 12, 1909. 23 "Den eveneke Presse," Verdens Gang, Dec. 13, 1908. 21

254

CRITICISM

bowing apparently in the direction of Alfred Nobel, it would never have been necessary for any Norwegian Nobel Committee to worry about awarding any "Swedish money" to anyone. 21 Fortunately, such pique and resentment were not universal in Sweden. In Denmark, the choices of 1 9 0 8 met with distinctly less objection. Politiken was well pleased, of course, though it referred again to the Committee's modesty; perhaps, it suggested, the Committee was following a certain order, rewarding first the outside world, then Sweden and Denmark, and finally Norway. There were friends of peace in Norway too, it added, and it was to be hoped that b e f o r e too long the d i s t i n g u i s h e d honor could

be awarded to one of the Committee's own countrymen. 25 No award of the Committee has provoked such wide or such vehement comment as that of November, 1 9 3 6 , to Carl von Ossietzky. The German government, it will be recalled, chose to assume that it had been insulted, and two months later disclosed the measure of its displeasure when it promulgated a decree which prevents any person of German nationality from accepting a Nobel Prize in the future. As a complement to this action, there was established a national prize f o r "art and science," to be divided annually among three worthy Germans; in effect the provision was for three prizes of 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 marks each (the first awards were made in the fall of 1 9 3 7 ) . 2 6 Apart from its histrionic aspect, this gesture was more comprehensive than it needed to be. In demonstrating against the Peace Prize, it was not necessary to exclude Germans from the other four Nobel prizes, which are awarded in Sweden. In the latter country the Nazi demonstration created a most unfavorable impression. It seemed to some in Sweden and elsewhere, in fact, that the 2 4 " E n Skrivelse frân norska Nobelkomitén," Heisingborgsposten, "Nobelkomiténs Formand," ibid., Dec. 16, 1908. 25 Politiken, Dec. 11, 1908. 2 8 Cf. the New York Times, Sept. 8, 1937.

Dec. 14, 1908;

CRITICISM

255

Peace Prize was promoting, not peace, but strife and friction. Had the Committee been tactful in this instance? asked some. The Prize was to go to the one who had labored best or most for the fraternization of peoples, said Nobel's will, and one commentator reminded the Committee that the latter was under obligation to promote the same end in the best and wisest manner. 27 Three members of the Nobel clan served notice in a Berlin paper that, in their opinion, the Von Ossietzky award was not in conformity with the founder's intentions. 28 A word from a few of the Nobels on this occasion served to recall a similar situation several decades before, when some members of the family were protesting the very terms of Nobel's will. Their objections were then substantiated by some of the Swedish conservatives, who feared that the contemplated Peace Prize might serve, not to mollify, but to intensify international friction, principally between Norway and Sweden. They feared, or pretended to fear, that the Norwegian Storting might employ the Prize to "bribe" other countries to oppose Sweden." The Von Ossietzky candidacy disrupted the Committee itself, and the resulting withdrawals—those of Koht and Mowinckel— occasioned some criticism. One publicist, assuming that there had been reluctance to vote against Von Ossietzky—a gratuitous assumption—used the ugly word cowardice, although the award as a whole suggested not cowardice but courage. 30 In his capacity as one of the presidents of the Storting and as chairman of the Storting's Committee on Elections, C. J. Hambro characterized the withdrawals as "lack of discipline." He wanted to know whether the two members had asked the Storting for dismissal; only that body, he averred, had the authority to dismiss, as well « Tidens Tegn, Nov. 30, 1936, p. 2. 2» lbid^ Dec. 2, 1936. 29 Memoirs of Bertha von Suttner, Vol. II, p. 146, letter of April 13, 1898, from R. Sohlman to the Baroness; C. Lindhagen, Carl Lindhagens Memoarer, Vol. I, p. 253. »o Tidens Tegn, Nov. 27, 1936.

256

CRITICISM

as to appoint, the members of the Nobel Committee. 31 It should be observed that the withdrawals were then thought of as temporary; they referred specifically to the forthcoming deliberations over the Peace Prize and requested that alternates be called. 32 The issue which thus came to a head in the autumn of 1936 was really not new. In later years there had been a growing criticism of the circumstance that a member of the Committee frequently happened to be also the country's Foreign Minister. This circumstance, it was intimated, seemed to place the approval of the Norwegian government behind the decisions of the Nobel Committee. Such a conclusion, reasoned Koht, might be encouraged by the fact that votes taken in the Committee were secret and no record was kept of any differences of opinion. Even in 1935 Koht had urged—he had lately become Foreign Minister—that he be allowed to withdraw from the Committee's deliberations, but he had been prevailed upon to continue. In 1936, however, he decided upon withdrawal, and his colleagues gave their approval to his action. The one point to notice here is that the Committee, or a group of its members, was taking account of a volume of criticism. In a sense, that criticism, partly shared by individual members of the Committee itself, was translated into official action in June, 1937, when the Storting adopted an additional regulation forbidding a Cabinet official simultaneously to hold an active Committee membership. 33 When the Prize has been awarded to institutions instead of to individuals, there has naturally been less occasion for criticism on strictly personal grounds. Yet even the award of the 1917 Prize to the International Committee of the Red Cross, which might have been expected to win universal acclaim, evoked some disapproving comment. Insisting that the Red Cross was a Ibid., Nov. 26, 1 9 3 6 ; Morgenbladet, N o v . 24, 1 9 3 6 . Arsberetning fra det norske Stortings Nobelkomite for 1936, p. 2. M o w i n c k e l ' s w i t h d r a w a l , as w e h a v e seen, b e c a m e definitive s o m e m o n t h s later. Supra, p . 222. 33 Supra, p. 208. 31

32

CRITICISM

257

humanitarian, but hardly a peace, organization, certain peace workers in Sweden thought the Red Cross might well have deserved the Nobel Prize for medicine, but should never have been considered for the Peace Prize; it had never concerned itself with the question of how war could be prevented. More oblique in its comment, a Norwegian peace organ suggested that the Red Cross had not needed the Prize, for it was already very well known among the friends of war as well as the friends of peace." HONORING STATESMEN AND PUBLIC

OFFICIALS:

T H E T H E O D O R E ROOSEVELT AWARD

The Committee has been particularly vulnerable when it has made awards not to professional peace workers, but to responsible politicians in office. For such persons interest in peace must necessarily be auxiliary to other concerns; usually, it has but an official character. The regular peace workers and advocates have been inclined to protest against such awards, and many have felt that their objections have been justified. The earliest and most arresting award of this character was that made to Theodore Roosevelt in 1906. Certain claims could, of course, be advanced in favor of this choice. The President had helped to bring Russia and Japan together at Portsmouth in 1905. Some could recall that he had withdrawn U. S. troops from Cuba, and that he had stirred to new life the Court of Arbitration at The Hague.35 But others, especially in Sweden, were led to wonder whether auxiliary motives might not have played a part in the selection. Perhaps, it was suggested, there had been a desire to advertise die Peace Prize by pinning it on some renowned world figure. Or possibly L0vland, who was then both Foreign Minister and Chairman of the Nobel Committee, had sought to recruit a powerful friend for newly independent 31

Folkejred, Vol. Π (1918), pp. 90-91. « Posten, Dec. 14, 1906.

258

CRITICISM

Norway or had employed an opportunity to advance his cherished plan of an integrity treaty for Norway. 36 It was later said of the Integrity Treaty of 1907 that it had been hatched within the walls of the Nobel Institute.37 In Denmark, Politiken thought there might be danger in the practice of giving the award to a statesman in office and read the Norwegian Committee a severe lecture, pointing out that it would be difficult to come down to an ordinary level again after this exalted award. "International etiquette," it feared, would demand that similar recognition be shown the heads of other states. One could hardly pass over Kaiser Wilhelm the next year; he had armed himself to the limit in order to preserve Europe's peace! There was Czar Nicholas, who had taken the initiative in the Hague Conference; unfortunately he had not received the Prize before getting entangled in a war with Japan. The Committee had involved itself in a paradox whose full implications would be evident, said Politiken, only in some future war, when the heads of the opposing states could subjoin to their signatures of the respective declarations of war the phrase, "rewarded with Nobel's Peace Prize." 38 The Roosevelt award became a classic. What lashed the critics to fury, we can easily see, was the difficulty of reconciling Roosevelt's armament and imperialist policies with Nobel's intention of rewarding those who had done most to decrease armaments. 39 Again and again, when critics have wanted to call in question the Committee's judgment on candidates, they have referred to the decision of 1906. 4 0 By this award, said one, the Committee had made itself " a laughing stock." Even on the 8e "Fredsprisen og den svenske Presse," Morgenbladet, Dec. 11, 1906; Ajtenposten, Dec. 16, 1906. 37 Landsbladet, Jan. 20, 1908. «s Politiken, Dec. 11, 1906. se Social-Demokraten, Dec. 12, 1906. 4 0 Cf. Politiken, Dec. 11, 1908; Social-Demokraten, 1912, No. 294, p. 3; Ny Tid, Dec. 11, 1913; Fredsbanneret, Vol. IX, December, 1913, p. 46; Ajtenposten, Dec. 10, 1926, p. 4.

CRITICISM

259

floor of the Storting it was spoken of as "undeserved." In this speaker's opinion there were in America few more vigorous "chauvinists" than the former President.41 Some of the awards to other prominent statesmen have also been criticized. One writer, in 1918, would have excluded from the competition not only septuagenarians and octogenarians, for whom the Committee seemed to have a peculiar weakness, but also statesmen in office.42 The Left and radical press was outspoken in condemnation of the grant to Baron d'Estournelles de Constant, claiming that he had agitated actively for large armaments in France. 43 There were similar objections to the award to Elihu Root, who was described as "an outstanding militarist, eager for conquest." 44 The award to President Wilson, in 1920, was by no means unanimously approved. His candidacy met a distinctly favorable reaction in some columns, when first proposed in 1918, 4 5 but others were less enthusiastic.48 A writer named 0verland referred to the award as outright "sabotage" of Nobel's will, wondering in sarcastic vein if the Committee was dispensing " a war medal," since it had given the prize to a man who had gotten his nation into war as quickly as possible.47 In 1926 the Committee took with a vengeance to the policy of rewarding responsible statesmen. It divided the year's prize between Briand and Stresemann and gave the previous year's reserved prize to Dawes and Chamberlain. Every one of these, observed a later president of Norway's Peace Union, had received the prize as a statesman or as a Minister, not as an individual; not one had taken the initiative in an agreement really to secure peace. 48 By and large, it may be said that the ComStortings Forhandlinger, 1912, VII, 2049. « Verdens Gang, Dec. 10, 1918. « "Nobelhumbugen," Social-Demokraten, Dec. 17, 1909. 44 Ny Tid, Dec. 11, 1913. 4 5 H&kon Lftken, "Nobel-Fredsprisen ti] Wilson!" Νorges HandelsSjtfartstidende, Dec. 5, 1918. Norig, 1918, No. 284; Norske Intelligenssedler, 1918, No. 338. 4 7 Arnulf Overland, "Alfred Nobels Krigspris," Ukens Revy, 1921, pp. 3-5. 4 8 O. F. Onden], "Fredsprisen," Verden Venter, January, 1927, p. 4. 41

og

260

CRITICISM

mittee has been exposed to less criticism when it has rewarded peace workers who (as a then obscure Russian journalist named Trotsky put it before the War) have devoted all their lives to the cause, 49 and have labored incessantly for that disarmament of the mind which must come as a prerequisite to any lasting state of peace,50 than when it has set out to honor men in high office, even powerful "lords of victory." 51

INTERPRETING FOR

A DIFFICULT

SERVICES R E N D E R E D

"THE

CLAUSE:

PREVIOUS

YEAR"

With monotonous frequency the criticism has been made—it applies more or less to all the prize-awarding bodies—that the prizes have been awarded for other contributions than those rendered during "the previous year," as the will specifies. In 1907 an American periodical published a table to show how many years had intervened in some instances between the year of a Nobel prize winner's primary achievement and the date of the prize award. 52 Thirty-four was the figure for Passy. The whole undertaking, said a Danish writer, was taking on the quality of a glorified order of merit—a sort of scholarly and artistic "Order of the Elephant" 5 3 —whereas Nobel had intended to reward, and to assure the economic independence of, talented young persons who had recently performed some work of unusual promise. 54 One of the witnesses to Nobel's will, Leonard Hwass, was particularly caustic on this point, insisting that Nobel had intended the prizes to be not honorary but promotive. Each year 49 "Grovt Angrep paa den norske Nobelkomite," Trondhjems Addresseavis, Aug. 8, 1910. 50 Axel Otto Norman, "Sp0k ikke med Fredsprisen," Dagbladet, Nov. 3, 1928. 61 Ukens Revy, 1921, pp. 3-5. 52 "The Perversion of the Nobel Fund," The Independent, Vol. LXII (1907), p. 1099. 53 Politiken, Dec. 12, 1906. 54 Morgenbladet, Dec. 7, 1920, p. 4.

CRITICISM

261

the awards seemed to diverge farther and farther from the original purposes, said Hwass. Nobel had intended to lighten the lives of the dreamers—the spirits bent upon high ideals, the poets and inventors. Edison was a great inventor, the greatest of all perhaps, but to have given him a prize, said Hwass, would have "convulsed" Nobel, who had been determined to help those who needed it, those from whom something might yet be expected." FINANCES AND GENERAL

POLICY

We may turn next to criticism of the Committee and its work in general. Now and then the financial arrangements have drawn some comment, on the ground that too large a proportion of the Nobel Foundation's net income is set aside for administrative purposes. The American Independent, which at times was breezy enough in its criticisms, stated in 1907 that whereas each prize should be yielding some $64,000, administrative expenses were cutting this down to about $37,000 "and still the local administrators are not satisfied with what they get out of it." 58 When pressed for a comment on this type of criticism, L0vland explained that these matters were governed by the basic Statutes and hence were not modifiable at the option of the Norwegian Committee.57 Some have complained, also, that the affairs and deliberations of the Committee are too private and esoteric, the public learning little more than it can glean from very brief annual reports submitted to the Storting. In 1934 Bonnevie asked for an accounting on the matter of publicity, or the lack of it, and proposed in the Storting that the whole issue be the subject of 55 Leonard Hwass, "Nobel's Ideas Not Carried Out," New York Evening Post, Feb. 14, 1914, Part iii (Supplement Section), pp. 1, 3 ; reprinted from Die Woche, Vol. XVI, Jan. 10, 1914, pp. 4 3 4 6 ; cf. R. W. Strehlenert, "Nochmals Nobels Testament," Die Woche, Vol. XVI, pp. 512-13. 56 The independent, Vol. LXII (1907), pp. 1098-1100; KristUznssands Tidende, May 26, 1910; cf. also the issue of June 2. " Morgenbladet, May 31, 1910.

CRITICISM

262

a formal report. 68 Bonnevie was disturbed over the Committee's omission of an award in 1933, following an omission in 1932 —this too, he observed, precisely at a time when the forces working for peace had been thrust entirely on the defensive and definitely needed encouragement. As he saw it, there must be "negative energies" at work in the Committee, and a situation of that sort he thought should be rectified by the Storting. After all, he reminded his colleagues, this body was a committee chosen by the Storting, but there could be no real control before the prevailing secrecy was dispelled. Bonnevie, we must note, was taking too much for granted in hie d e m a n d ,

and

the

drift

of

his

remarks

was

therefore

quite

oblique. The Nobel Committee is a committee of the Storting only to the extent that the Storting has assumed responsibility for the selection and tenure of its membership. Beyond that, the Committee is really an autonomous body, exercising its functions under the terms of Nobel's will and of the basic Statutes of the Nobel Foundation at Stockholm. 59 Yet, misleading as they were in some respects, these remarks of Bonnevie have some merit as a manifestation of the current of criticism we are here considering. It may be remembered that Bonnevie had from time to time been very active in the affairs of Norway's Peace Union. On the whole, the members of that organization have felt that the Nobel Committee's activities have been too remote from the general run of peace workers. 60 The gap between them, thought Olden, sprang partly from the fact that the privilege of recommending candidates for the Peace Prize was restricted to relatively few well-placed individuals, highly specialized in their interests. He believed, however, that the peace workers themselves might narrow the gap to some extent by carrying on their agitation in such a manner as to bring the candidates they Stortings Forhandlinger, 1934, V I I a , 987. It is subject to no other control and its decisions commit only itself, as S t a n g reasserted when he presented the Von Ossietzky a w a r d . 60 Folkefred, Vol. II, J u n e , 1918, p. 9 1 ; Dagbladet, Dec. 11, 1925. 68

59

263

CRITICISM

favored more definitely before the attention of those qualified to make the recommendations. 81 There was the Special Fund, someone pointed out, which might be used to carry on active propaganda for the peace cause, were it not for the fact that the Institute, "exalted high above the private endeavors for peace," had, in its aloofness, developed bureaucratic methods of its own, which were quite on a par with those of any government bureau or department. 82 From the very beginning, in fact, there was a certain lack of sympathy between many peace workers in Norway and the Nobel establishment. The angular peace advocate S0rensen perhaps expressed it most sharply at the outset, when he referred to Nobel's gift as "unfortunate" and ventured to think that its effect upon the peace movement in Norway would hardly be beneficial. 83 CRITICISM OF N O B E L ' S CHOICE OF T H E

STORTING

On occasion, chiefly in the early years, there was some objection to the very idea of having the Peace Prize administered by Norway. Patriotic elements feared that the duty of administering the Prize might validate some undefined claims by Sweden, and the tone of Swedish press comment at times lent color to Norwegian uneasiness. Thus, in 1900, one of the Stockholm dailies proposed that the Swedish government should be given the right to veto awards made by the Norwegian Committee. There were cases, it insisted, in which the Committee's action might lead to international complications, since the Prize might be awarded to an individual who, because of his peace work, was regarded a s an " e n e m y " by his own state. 84 It was argued in 1905, in the same Swedish medium, that by her acO. F. Olden, "Nobelkomiteen," Verden Venter, Vol. IV, pp. 3-4. Dagbladet, May 2, 1917; "Fredebyrâkrati," Dagbladet, Dec. 16, 1927, p. 4. 83 Fred, Vol. II, June 30, 1900, pp. 86-87; cf. also the unflattering remarks in Vol. VI, October, 1904, p. 159. 84 Morgenbladet, June 21, 1900; cf. C. Lindhagen, Carl Lindhagens Memoarer, Vol. I, pp. 253, 276-77. 81

62

264

CRITICISM

tion that year Norway had forfeited her right to award the Peace Prize. Had she not built a row of barrier fortresses, dissolved the Union unilaterally, and unceremoniously deposed her lawful King? That these high-handed acts had not resulted in war was due not to Norway but to Sweden, which had borne all these affronts without resort to force. Surely by that display of self-control she had merited the right to administer the Peace Prize. 65 Naturally, good nationalist circles in Norway found such Swedish comment irritating. As one opinion had it, "Even the most cunning Swedish jingoist (storsvenske)" could have conceived n o better means to hoodwink a people that had little con-

sciousness of self to begin with than had "the well-intentioned Nobel with his foolish testament." ββ There was an uneasy feeling abroad that Nobel's disposition had somehow vitiated the Storting's freedom of action. Whenever called upon to act in the field of peace and related matters, said the nationalist landsrnaal medium, Den 17 de Mai, the Storting had first to inquire, not what would most redound to the country's welfare, but how would the friends of peace react and what would have been Nobel's intention. That the Storting should thus be "running errands" for a private Swedish citizen seemed strange and "contrary to nature." What right, anyway, did Nobel have to lay this restraint upon the Storting; more than that, what right had the Storting had to assume this obligation? This writer readily granted the argument (advanced in certain Swedish circles) that, since Nobel's will had been predicated upon the existence of the Union, Norway by dissolving that Union had ended her authority to administer the Peace Prize. Almost cheerfully he proposed—such national self-effacement might under other circumstances have been most praiseworthy in principle—that "5 Morgenposten, 1905, No. 189. »« J. W . M . , "Farlige Fraser," Posten,

Nov. 21, 1906.

CRITICISM

265

Norway should return to Sweden her commission to dispose of the Peace Prize! 67 EXTENUATING

CIRCUMSTANCES

It will be pertinent here to inquire, in the face of the various criticisms we have considered, what, if anything, may be said on behalf of the Committee. We may first note, with reference to the awards, that the Committee by no means regards its choices as infallible. Though it is forbidden to make public its discussions of candidates, it recognizes that its awards may well be subject to criticism. 68 The individual Committee members know only too well how difficult the choice can at times be. 89 Certainly it is interesting to see how frankly several individuals connected with the Committee and the Institute have expressed themselves about the Roosevelt award of 1906. Some time before the award was made, Lange, then Secretary of the Committee, spoke of Roosevelt's determination to make his country a guiding power in the Western hemisphere; if one lifted the veil of Pan-Americanism, Lange assured his readers, one would find American imperialism. 70 Somewhat later, Koht (then a counsellor) spoke of Roosevelt as one who, while he had caught glimpses of a new order marked by cooperation and socialization, nevertheless was still captivated by much in the old order characterized by imperialist rivalries and high tariff policies. He had, said Koht, led his country along paths which promoted international discord, particularly in the Caribbean. 71 In 1 9 1 4 Secretary Moe spoke of the former President, who had recommended a strong police Den 17 de Mai, Oct. 5, 1911. "Nobels Fredspris," Aftenposten, Dec. 16, 1909; see also the issue following. 80 Les Prix Nobel en 1931, p. 57. 7 0 Chr. L. Lange, "Panamerikanisme," Samtìden, Vol. XVII, pp. 347-48. 7 1 H. Koht, "Roosevelt og den amerikanske Storpolitikken," Syn og Segn, Vol. XIV (1907/08), pp. 25-47. β7

98

266

CRITICISM

organization to enforce the awards of international arbitration, as holding the Angel of Peace in one hand and the Big Stick in the other." Gjelsvik, who was inclined to favor the Central Powers, in 1917 referred to Roosevelt as one of the foremost representatives of the "big imperialist" trend in the West. 73 It is an easy matter to claim that the Nobel Committee has violated the clause in Nobel's will which states that awards are to be made on the basis of accomplishments performed within the last year. Loosely drawn as it is in other respects, in this particular the will happens to be very specific. That, in all probability, is the source of the difficulty. The will is more specific than it ought to he on a matter which some of the realities

and facts of life belie. In actual life it is not always possible to estimate the importance of a contribution made "within the last year." The natural scientist, it is true, works with concrete materials. His results are often palpable and directly measurable; new discoveries or developments in his field no doubt often prove their decisive character within a year or two, though difficulties are perceived here too." But in literature, and even more in the field of peace work, it is apt to be a long time before the contribution of an individual can be evaluated. The writer and the peace worker operate in the realm of ideas alone, and the influence of ideas—never to be measured with any accuracy— is effective only over longer periods of time than a twelvemonth. Even media inclined to be critical of other matters have appreciated the difficulties here. 75 In short, the logic of life itself makes some departure from the strict terminology of the will almost inevitable in the case of the prizes for literature and for peace. Nov. 20, 1914. R. Moe, "Fredsarbeidets Fremtidsudsigter," Aftenposten, N. Gjelsvik, "Forliksfred," Syn og Segn, Vol. X X I I I (1917), p. 46. 7 4 Cf. Science; a Weekly Journal, N.S., Vol. X X V I I , No. 681, J a n . 17, 1908, pp. 108-12. 7 5 "Nobel and His Prizes," New York Evening Post, Feb. 14, 1914, p. 6. 72

73

CRITICISM

267

HOW THE COMMITTEE VIEWS THE PEACE MOVEMENT

If it be asked, how does the Committee look upon the peace movement in general, that is, what are some of the categories in which its thought operates, we may attempt an answer by pointing, in the first instance, to the candidates it has rewarded. Quite obviously it has distinguished between the practical statesman and the professional peace worker. Beyond this, the activities of the latter in turn have been considered as of two broad types, one restrictive, the other constructive. Efforts to remedy the worst evils of the war system, that is, endeavors to humanize war, may be thought of as restrictive; those directed to the organization of institutions and procedures which may help to make orderly international processes habitual may be designated constructive. In several prize awards the Committee has recognized both types simultaneously. Thus its first award was divided between Dunant, whom it honored for his work with the Red Cross, and Passy, whom it honored for his activities with the Inter-Parliamentary Union.7® In yet another way it may distinguish between the "technicians," who labor to establish the foundations of the institutions of a better order, and the "educators," who strive to extend the sway of the peace cause through preachment and propaganda. The awards to Henderson and Saavedra Lamas, for example, took cognizance of the former type of activity, those to Sir Norman Angeli and Von Ossietzky, of the latter. 77 Of course, the Committee does not, in the case of those it honors, identify itself with all their opinions. The many summaries and abstracts of the peace movement, which the Secretaries, Lange and Moe, have prepared, have a certain relevancy in this connection. Though they cannot be 7 8 Chr. L. Lange, "The Future of the Norwegian Nobel Institute," The pendent, Vol. LXII, p. 1062. " L e s Prix Nobel en 1934, p. 65; Tidens Tegn, Dec. 11, 1936.

Inde-

268

CRITICISM

cited directly as evidences of the Committee's point of view, they reflect to some degree, no doubt—since the Secretary has to be directly conversant with the deliberations of the Committee—the general attitudes of the Committee. In these summaries, several types of peace work have been distinguished. First, the work of the propagandists and popularizers ; second, juridical endeavors such as the activities of the International Law Association; third, work on the parliamentary level represented in the labors of the Inter-Parliamentary Union; and fourth, efforts to induce responsible ministers and heads of states to take definitive action in favor of the peace cause, for instance, in the form of arbitration treaties. 78 Tn another type of summary, Secretary Moe once periodized the history of the peace movement, distinguishing between an earlier heroic period, marked by a religious idealistic pacifism, and a later political period—getting well under way after the turn of the century—which calls for the performance of certain political tasks, above all for the politico-juridical organization of international relations. 78 When we look to see where members of the Committee and the Institute staff stand in their political sympathies and their approach to contemporary affairs, we observe that these sympathies are predominantly of the Left. Stang, and Braadland too, in part, are of the Right, and Hanssen may now be said to have similar leanings. But most of the members are associated with a position generally characteristic of the Left. Beyond these, Koht has never lost his early Social Democratic sympathies, and Tranmael is an important force in the present Labor Party. On the basic social question, the relation of capitalism to the peace movement, opinions naturally vary in conformity with political points of view. Those whose sympathies are of 78 Cf., for example, Chr. L. Lange, "Coordination et cooperation dans le domaine du mouvement international de la paix," La Vie internationale, Vol. I, March, 1912, pp. 61-82. »» R. Moe, "Fredspolitik," Dagbladet, Dec. 31, 1910.

CRITICISM

269

the Left tend to be skeptical, with the increasing complexity of modem industrial life, of any lasting assistance from international capital in the task of building a more stable world order. Stang on the Right, however, is responsive to such elements of promise as the present system has to offer; he takes a second look at the countless technical improvements which are bringing peoples together and consolidating their interests. In these tendencies, he affirms, the peace workers may find some grounds for hope and some reasons for optimism. 80 These are general attitudes, of course, and the reader is not to assume that such sympathies play a positive or direct rôle in the deliberations pertaining to the Peace Prize. There is no available evidence to suggest that Committee members tend to divide along political lines when they are considering Peace Prize candidates. On such occasions their task is the single one of selecting the person who in their opinion has been most active in the cause of peace or is otherwise most worthy of the Prize. To this task they give their best endeavor, we have a right to assume, and it is not one that needs to turn on partisan politics. And yet it is legitimate to call attention to the diversity of political viewpoints within the Committee and the Institute staff, for these viewpoints are certainly a part of the "background" we are considering. What is more, they give to the work of the Committee and the Institute a breadth and a comprehension which it otherwise might not have. F R E E TRADE SYMPATHIES

Members of the Committee and the Institute have uniformly had a certain sympathy with the free-trade movement. They are rather strongly convinced that free-trade or low-tariff policies are apt to accompany eras of peace, while high-tariff policies tend to increase international friction and at times take on the aspect of economic war. Begotten by war in the first »" Les Prix Nobel en 1930, pp. 82-83.

270

CRITICISM

place, said Bj0rnson, tariffs in tum nourish the war system; the abolition of war, he thought, would entail the elimination of the tariff mischief. 8 1 Hertzberg, who served for a time as counsellor, was a convinced free trader, until forced by circumstances to consider high-tariff policies. Raestad has maintained that free' trade is a product of peace, and that peace and free trade are really aspects of the same broad phenomenon. 8 J Anxious to have available a scholarly study on the history of the free-trade movement in the nineteenth century and its correlation with the efforts to promote international peace, the Institute in 1 9 1 9 arranged an international competition on the subject. T h e r e were nine entrants, representing several countries,

but none quite measured u p to the original intentions. In 1924, a study by Helen Bosanquet was published by the Institute in its " P u b l i c a t i o n s , " under the title Free Trade and Peace in the Nineteenth Century. THE

SPECIFIC

CHARACTER

OF

THE

COMMITTEE'S

ASSIGNMENT

Critics of the Nobel Committee and its work do well to remember that the commission it is called upon to execute is a positive and a specific one. Its task is not to stop the outbreak of war, though it hopes that its efforts will contribute to that end, 8 3 and it h a s no way to quiet tendencies which make for public uneasiness and international disturbance. It has no means, a s L0vland pointed out in 1912, of penalizing the factors which work against peace. The rôle of the Committee is therefore positive. Its duty, a s Stang has put it, is to be on the watch for all developments which m a y have future potentialities for the peace cause. 8 4 It can take account, not of factors that disrupt peace, but of those 81K. P. Arnoldson, Lov—ikke Krig, mellem Folkene, p. 6 ; cf. J . L0vland, Menn og Minner fra 1905, p. 2 9 8 ; B . B j 0 m s o n , Artikler og Taler, Vol. II, p. 241. 8 2 Arnold Raestad, " 0 k o n o m i s k P o l i t i k , " Samtiden, Vol. X X I X , pp. 509-10. 8 3 R . Moe, " F r e d s p o l i t i k , " Dagbladet, Dec. 31, 1910. **Les Prix Nobel en 1930, pp. 82-83; Tidens Tegn, Dec. 11, 1936.

CRITICISM

271

that work for it, though within this limitation a member like Bj0rnson has pleaded for a loose and wide interpretation of the Committee's powers.85 Nobel's will states that the Committee is to reward those who have done most to promote the fraternization of nations, the elimination or reduction of standing armies, and the formation and popularization of peace congresses. It follows that direct propaganda has been left mainly to private initiative. Secretary Lange in 1 9 0 7 considered it "not very probable" that such popular activity would form part of the "proper work" of the Institute, 8 * though as we have seen above, in the chapter on "the Institute's activities, there has been a tendency in the last two decades to give some assistance also to popular peace work. Nor is it to be forgotten that from the undistributed prizes is gradually being built up a substantial fund. This Special Fund's unexpended interest accumulation places the Committee in a position, should the occasion ever seem appropriate, to undertake, in addition to the regular prize award, some major thrust in the interest of the peace cause. J . Lflvland, Menn og Minner fra 1905, pp. 284-85, letter of Jan. 26, 1897. Chr. L. Lange, "The Future of the Norwegian Nobel Institute," The Independent, Vol. LXII, p. 1064. 85

86

XVIII

THE BACKGROUND RECONSIDERED I Ν T H I S closing chapter we shall attempt a general characterization of the setting in which the Storting's Committee and the Norwegian Nobel Institute carry on their work. We may draw freely and in a half-summarizing manner upon the chapters that have gone before, supplementing the narrative here and there with some fact or observation which has hitherto not

found a place in our discourse. A SMALL STATE WITH A LARGE MERCHANT MARINE

The first thing we may note is that as national states are measured, Norway is one of the smaller states of Europe. Her population is about that of the city of greater Philadelphia. This, naturally, affects the general outlook of her people: the public psychology of any country is conditioned to some extent by its size. Norway is never in a position to forget that, like some of her nextdoor neighbors, she is always at the mercy of larger states. In issues of war and peace especially, she must tread warily. No matter how much she may desire peace, there is always the chance in times of stress that forces quite beyond her control may somehow drag her into the larger European maelstrom or shift some of the hostilities to her neutral waters in order to spare belligerent populations elsewhere. Though Norway is small as census figures go, she has, in proportion to her population, a very large merchant marine. In this respect she surpasses France, Italy, Germany, or the Netherlands and is exceeded only by Britain, the United States, and Japan. It is of course a readily recognized fact that maritime interests are sensitive to international disturbances, which often

THE BACKGROUND RECONSIDERED

273

entail blockades and interferences with shipping, and are keenly interested in problems of neutrality. In time of war, under favorable circumstances, the returns to the neutral carrying trade can be high, but the risks are also correspondingly high. During the World War the Norwegian merchant fleet did an abnormal business, but in the end it also sustained terrific losses. The total loss to Norwegian tonnage—a total loss exceeded only by that of Great Britain, the major belligerent upon the sea— was 1,239,283 gross tons. During March and April, 1917, the months after unrestricted German submarine warfare got under way, the world losses were 1,457,155 tons, of which Norway's share was 208,423 tons. The losses of the United States for the equivalent period were 43,732 tons or about one-fifth of Norway's share! 1 In Norway as elsewhere the shipping industry has long been interested in reducing the risks (though hardly the profits) of neutral wartime trade. The appeal has been to international law and has found typical expression in the demand for regulation and control of the "brutal and violent steps" which war at sea entails—for example, the capture of prizes and the seizure of enemy cargo under neutral flag.2 Yet it is appreciated that the long-term interests of the carrying trade are best served, not by the risky opportunities of the wartime neutral trade, but by the steady flow of commerce and exchange that belongs only to periods of peace. It may be recalled in this connection that Bernhard Hanssen made a handsome donation to Norway's Peace Union in 1916, 3 accompanying it with the explanation that as the World War had driven ocean freights sharply upward and increased shipping profits, he found it reasonable 1 The comparison of these losses is interesting in view of the fact that the United States found it necessary to enter the War because of this warfare, while Norway, though much closer to the center of hostilities and suffering much heavier losses, found it possible to stay out of war. 2 Cf. [M. H. Oppen], "Fredssag—Handel og Skibsfart," Jarlsbergs og Larviks Amtstidende, Nov. 11, 1910. 3 Supra, pp. 53-54.

274

THE BACKGROUND

RECONSIDERED

and proper that "those of us shippers who totally hate and abominate war and all that it entails should sacrifice at least a portion of our earnings to the peace cause." Besides Hanssen, Mowinckel also is a shipping magnate. But at this point it is well to remind the reader that it is as individuals interested in the cause of peace—quite apart from their occupational interests—that the Committee members perform their functions in connection with the Peace Prize. NATIONALISM AND LABOR POLITICS

Though it is a small state in point of numbers, Norway is not too small to have its share—perhaps more than its share —of nationalism. It is a very minor point, but one of interest in connection with our story, that while peace societies in Denmark and Sweden employ the adjectival form in their titles, the Norwegian society employs the noun; it has never been called the Norwegian Peace Union, but always Norway's Peace Union. More directly significant is the advancing landsmaal movement,4 which by the end of the nineteenth century had evoked a parallel opposition in the riksmaal movement. Between them, these two have shown clearly enough the extremes to which passions may rise in nationalist agitation. Every aspect of public life in Norway has been shot through with opposing sets of loyalties, each defending with zeal and attacking with bitterness, each claiming to represent true Norwegian patriotism. Uncomfortable as it often has been, this conflict has certainly tended to make more alert the sense of sympathy for suppressed nationalities and oppressed minorities—L0vland, for instance, wrote sympathetically of the Ruthenians in preWar days 5 —both categories whose national grievances play so large a part in international politics today and sometimes prove so disturbing to international peace. Two able champions of the 4 5

Cf. the writer's National Romanticism in Norway, pp. 289-372. J. Ljtvland, "Rutenarne," Syn og Segn, Vol. XV (1909), pp. 49-51, 97-105.

THE BACKGROUND RECONSIDERED

275

landsmaal movement who have served on the Nobel Committee are L0vland and Koht. Not without importance to the cause of peace in Norway is the circumstance that what has become the country's largest political party, holding Cabinet responsibility, is the Labor Party. This party is, in the main, the heir of the old Social Democrats. Traditions of democracy are now firmly rooted in the social soil of Norway, as indeed of Sweden and Denmark also. And the democracy that here prevails, though it is political in the first instance—Norway was one of the early states in Europe to grant the suffrage to women—is also pronouncedly economic. Some may think of it as a Northern type of Fabian socialism, but it is more than that. It is willing to go far, according to American standards at least, in alleviating the harsher grinding aspects of unrestricted capitalism and in extending the community's control and ownership of certain industries and services. Withal, it retains a vital appreciation of the very heavy stake which capitalism is apt to have in the war system. Anti-militarism, it will be recalled, was traditional with the old Social Democrats. LIBERAL AND DEMOCRATIC IDEALS OF PROGRESS

It should be clear by this time that the members of the Nobel Committee live and work in the midst of a society which still accepts, in the main, those traditions of liberalism and humanitarianism in which the generation at the close of the nineteenth century had such an unshaken faith. That faith owed something to eighteenth-century humanitarianism and cosmopolitanism, something to the ideals of organic social unity which sprang from early nineteenth-century romanticism. Mainly, however, it drew strength and support from the phenomenal contemporary progress in theoretic and applied science and in industrial development and economic well-being. True, the concomitant developments of nationalism, militarism, navalism, and im-

276

THE BACKGROUND

RECONSIDERED

perialism, with their exaltation of the doctrines of struggle and survival of the fittest, seemed to many to rule out the peace endeavors and to entrust the future of man to the bellicose impulses. But to others it appeared clear that the future belonged rather to the peaceful and cooperative impulses; it was these which were in partnership with natural law and evolution, and which therefore would some day emerge triumphant. 8 The network of intercourse between peoples, growing more and more intricate and complex, was becoming a web of ties and interests whose indispensable prerequisite would be a state of international peace. The real assurance of future peace, it seemed to some, l a y not in t h e organized pcacc efforts so m u c h as in

the growing power of international finance.7 Financiers, it seemed, would be in a position to control the issue of peace or of war and, in the nature of the case, would find it imperative to decide in favor of peace. In any event, no matter what the force most potent in bringing it about, it seemed certain that peace would be established in the not too distant future. We who have experienced the World War and its aftermath naturally find such reasoning quite fatuous. But at the opening of the twentieth century there had been no major war since the seventies, and it was specifically the intervening period that had seen the peace sentiment transformed into a definite organized movement challenging the allegiances of men in all walks of life, even among parliamentarians and statesmen. This organized effort was new and untried, and it is not odd that many should have overestimated its potentialities. A TRADITION OF SERVICE IN T H E PEACE CAUSE

The confident faith in the ultimate triumph of peace came to somewhat striking expression in the notion—voiced too infre8

Cf. A. Sabro, Om. Fredssagen (Christiania, 1895), pp. 3 4 . '"Praktisk Fredspolitik," Tidens Tegn, Dec. 22, 1910; cf. [M. H. Oppen], "Fredssag—Handel og Skibsfart," Jarlsberg og Larviks Amtstidende, Nov. 11, 1910.

T H E BACKGROUND R E C O N S I D E R E D

277

quently to be counted representative, but frequently enough to be of interest—that in a country like Norway organized peace endeavors were more or less superfluous. Nearly everyone was in favor of peace, anyway, it was argued. When Bajer asked Konow why it was so difficult to get a peace society started in the early period, the latter's reply was, "We are all friends of peace. We all want to work for peace. Why then form societies?" 8 In official circles, too, one encountered similar optimism. When Norway's Peace Union requested funds to remunerate speakers from Sweden and Denmark who were to tour the country lecturing on arbitration, the Storting committee in its report gave the opinion that money appropriated for such speakers would be "superfluous," since it could be taken for granted that the country already had a pretty thoroughgoing conviction of the great importance of the peace and arbitration cause.9 The same committee later denied a similar request, observing that in Norway those were "few and easy to count" who were hostile to the aims of the peace cause. Certainly no effort was needed to establish the fact that what the Storting had done for the peace cause, in its support of arbitration, had the wholehearted support of the Norwegian people at large.10 It should not be inferred that these expressions represented the prevailing opinion among the peace workers themselves, though some of them were aware that particular circumstances in Norway's history had seemingly, and perhaps actually, given the advantage to the forces of peace and made it appear that a peace psychology had penetrated deeply into the national mentality. But the peace workers also realized that the balance might at any time turn in favor of an opposite set of forces. The organized peace efforts must therefore be continued with unceasing vigilance. Peace societies and peace activities, said 8 F. Bajer, "Norge i det internationale Fredsstrœv," Det norske Fredsblad, Vol. I, July 5, 1894, p. 3. » Stortings Forhandlinger, 1896, VI a, Indst. S nr. 171, p. 419. !» Ibid., 1898-99, VI, 508-9; 1899-1900, II b, St. med. nr. 2, p. 2.

278

THE BACKGROUND

RECONSIDERED

Lange, had their part to play even in countries which, like Norway and Switzerland, had long-established traditions of peace and harbored "no militarists." 11 What a people believes to be true of itself is apt to become a part of its national tradition, able in turn to influence the lives and decisions of its citizens. A number of Norwegians were able by the end of the century to convince themselves that their country was committed to the tradition of peace in international affairs. Joined for centuries with Denmark, Norway had had no occasion to develop any foreign policy of her own. This was another way of saying, said Koht, that she followed no policy of force, ί ι υ π ι which she had s e p a r a t e d herself " m o r e than a n y

other country." Her people had become more hostile to armaments than "other peoples." 12 In modern times, the two great experiences of her national life, in 1814 and 1905, had been consummated not by military might but by negotiation. The procedures of peace, according to Keilhau, had become not only a part of her national tradition, but also a part of her national character. 13 More than anything else, what served to confirm the idea that Norway was committed to the policy of peace was the Storting's record in the nineties. In 1890 and in 1897, as we have seen, it supported arbitration unequivocally. It early aided the work of the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the Peace Bureau at Berne. Likewise, after 1899, it gave loyal support to the tribunal at The Hague. Its work was recognized abroad, most signally, of course, when Nobel placed the implementation of his Prize in the Storting's hands. With pardonable pride, Norwegians found it flattering to recall—in the press, from the public platform, on the floor of the national parliament—that 11 12 13

Chr. L. Lange, "Fredsarbeidet og dets Msend," Samtiden, Vol. XV, p. 104. H. Koht, Socialdemokratie, pp. 296-97. W. Keilhau, "Gevinst og taps Konto," Samtiden, Vol. X X I X , pp. 6-7.

T H E BACKGROUND R E C O N S I D E R E D

279

Nobel had done this to show that he appreciated what the Storting had done for peace.1* Nobel's donation became in turn a stimulus to further efforts in the cause of peace. Within a small people such as the Norwegian, a distinction of this magnitude stood a better chance of enlisting the sympathies of the general public than it would have had in the case of one of the Great Powers. Many Norwegians could join in the sentiment that, in accepting the responsibility entrusted to it by Nobel, the Storting had assumed an "international mission," 15 just as in the case of the Institute it enjoyed an opportunity such as had come "to no other country." 16 It takes no great perspicacity to see that Nobel's donation put an effective lever in the hands of the active and professional peace workers.17 With more justification than ever, they could demand continued participation in the work of the InterParliamentary Union and further support of other international peace endeavors.18 They could ask aid of the public treasury for the support of the local peace movement,19 or clamor for the reduction of military appropriations, or even demand complete disarmament. One writer urged that it ought to be an honor for Norway, as administrator of the Peace Prize, to be the first to adopt complete disarmament.20 There was some inconsistency, wrote another, between the Storting's sponsorship of certain appropriations for military purposes and the 14 See, for example, Stortings Forhandlinger, 1897, VI a, Indst. S nr. 220, pp. 557-58; 1898-99, VII, 741; 1899-1900, V, dokument nr. 70; 1904-5, V, dokument nr. 68; 1905-6, V, dokument nr. 53; Verdens Gang, January 4 and 23, 1897; Dagbladet, Dec. 9, 1901; Dec. 11, 1905; Bergens Tidende, Dec. 27, 1908; Folketidende, June 20, 1911; Social-Demokraten, June 26, 1917. 15 Stortings Forhandlinger, 1898-1899, VII, 755; cf. Les Prix Nobel en 1905, pp. 62-63. " Landsbladet, Jan. 20, 1908. 17 Cf. Fred, Vol. VII, July, 1905, p. 99. 18 Stortings Forhandlinger, 1897, VI a, Indst. S nr. 220, p. 557; 1912, VII, 149. 19 Dagbladet, Dec. 8, 1927. 20 S. Aarrestad, Om Awœpning, p. 63.

280

THE BACKGROUND

RECONSIDERED

circumstance that its Speaker, L0vland, was simultaneously Chairman of the Nobel Committee, whose duty it was to reward labors in favor of peace. 21 Whenever those labors seemed to proceed too slowly to satisfy the impatient or the critical, the taunt could be made that Norway was no longer in the vanguard of peoples laboring for peace. 22 THE

BEGINNINGS

OF

A MORE SMALL

PACIFIC

ORDER:

A NUCLEUS

OF

STATES

In like spirit, the peace advocates took full advantage of the opportunity to argue that, being a small state, Norway could play a rôle of international conscqucncc only in the field of peace endeavors. Norway, they maintained, was too small to meddle in the European concert, but not too small to be drawn into a major conflagration, and hence not too small to work for peace. She was large enough to live a happy life if she were left unmolested. 23 The feeling was that the small states could most easily take the lead in the work for peace. The initial steps were apt to be taken by them rather than by the Great Powers. More easily than their powerful neighbors, they could see that armaments might fail them as a means of protection. These small states, it was said in the nineties—today, perhaps, many would not agree—-have a less nationalistic history to defend than their stronger neighbors, while they can very readily get control over the instruction in their schools. Their pastors, too, may more readily be won for the peace cause. 24 Precisely because they were themselves a small people suffering injustice, wrote 2 1 "Regjeringen Vol. X, November, 1914, og Fredsarbeidet," Fredsbanneret, p. 42. 22 Stortings Forhandlinger, 1912, VII, 2046, 2050; Bjarne B0rde, "Fredsbevegelsens Pioner," Dagbladet, Dec. 23, 1927, p. 4. " Stortings Forhandlinger, 1890, VII, 235; 1894, VII, 2531. 2 4 " N o r s k Fredsforening," Dagbladet, F e b . 5, 1893.

THE BACKGROUND R E C O N S I D E R E D

281

Koht in 1900, the Norwegians were particularly obligated to aid the efforts to establish international law and justice.25 A related idea that was much to the fore at the turn of the century was the notion that the process of organizing the new international order must begin with a nucleus of small states. A limited area gradually accustoming itself to the use of arbitration and the maintenance of neutrality, it was argued, would step by step be extended until it eventually encompassed the entire family of nations. Bj0rnson, as we have seen,28 had been much taken with the idea, and Koht in 1906 closed his history of the Norwegian peace movement with the statement that it was from such lesser nuclei of peace and neutrality as the Scandinavian North or mid-European Switzerland that the rule of international peace would spread until it encompassed the world.27 CULTURAL OBLIGATIONS OF A WORLD WAR NEUTRAL

The first and all-important concern of a neutral during the World War was to avoid direct involvement in the struggle of the two mighty combinations of powers. Under the circumstances, however, neutrality, as some Norwegians and others saw it, had also a positive aspect. It entailed an obligation to do something to prepare for the peace that must some day come. To one writer, it seemed that it was time to exploit to the full the potentialities of the Nobel Institute. This task, he said, must now be accepted as "a world obligation," failing which Norwegians had better divest themselves entirely of the honorable 25

H. Koht, "Fredsvennerne og Unionen," Folkets Blad, April 7, 1900. Cf. supra, pp. 25-26. 27 H. Koht, Freds tanken i Noregs-sogo, pp. 149-50; cf. R. Moe, "Intern asjonal og Nasjonal Fred," Tidens Tegn, Nov. 13, 1933. That the Scandinavian states in a sense actually are forming the nucleus of a wider political combination is suggested by the recent Oslo Convention and the possibility, of late, that the East Baltic states may seek closer relations than heretofore with the states of the North; to these developments the writer has given some attention in an article that is to appear shortly in the American-Scandinavian Review. 28

282

THE BACKGROUND RECONSIDERED

obligations associated with the foundation. The annual prize money, amounting to about 150,000 kroner, could be saved for a few years, and before long it would make a capital fund of 1,000,000. Then, without neglecting its advisory duties to the Nobel Committee, the Institute could devote itself primarily to the increase of mutual knowledge and the fraternization of peoples, which really had been Nobel's great aim.28 A neutral like Norway, it seemed to many, must, when hostilities ceased, take all possible steps to bring about a reconciliation of the two belligerent groups. The latter were "mortally wounded" and would not be able by their own energies to organize the collective life of the future. The victors would, of course, shape the outlines of the coming peace, but the neutrals must labor to strengthen those currents among them which looked to the building of a permanent order founded on justice.29 The neutrals had a positive contribution to make toward peace and must not think themselves too small to effect the sacrifices required for this mediating rôle. Norway especially, with her established reputation in peace endeavors, could logically take an important part in this. She might use the Nobel prize money in this connection, proposed Keilhau, and, when the belligerents finally came to make peace at the conference table, they might well select a table in Christiania! Why not, he asked (shortly after the War began) assemble on the hundredth anniversary of the Congress of Vienna for a Congress of Christiania? 30 The mediation of the neutrals, some felt and felt very keenly, should be not so much political as cultural. Theirs was the su28 Anathon Aall, "Om Faedrelandsfylelse og den verdensmenneskelige Bevissthet," Samtiden, Vol. XXVI, pp. 218-20. 29 Chr. L. Lange, Den euiopœiske Borgerkrig, pp. 101, 107. As Lange put it long after the War, the neutrals were to play the rôle of Bismarck's "honest broker," seeking through the formulation of wise compromises to reconcile the contradictions of the Great Powers. "Foran Nedrustnings-Konferansen," Samtiden, Vol. XLIII, p. 12. so W. Keilhau, "Wienerkongressen 1915," Samtiden, Vol. XXV, pp. 434-45.

THE BACKGROUND RECONSIDERED

283

preme obligation of promoting the reconciliation of former enemies so as to heal the schism in European culture. The great conflict had broken the cultural unity of pre-War Europe, and the resulting gulf seemed unbridgeable. The scholars and cultural leaders of one set of belligerents banned and excommunicated those of the other, only to be treated likewise by their opponents. Should the cleft between the two prove permanent, said Keilhau, the resulting schism would take its place as the most fatal consequence of the struggle.81 No one perhaps was so much concerned over the obligations the neutrals owed to the future of European culture as Fredrik Stang, who expounded his ideas on the subject at length in a lecture delivered before a Scandinavian Inter-Parliamentary meeting at Christiania in 1917. 3 2 The War, he said, had ruthlessly shattered that international cooperation of scholars which had so laboriously been built up, and the close of hostilities would leave Europe's cultural life in a distracted and divided condition. Something ought to be done, urged Stang, to provide some haven of refuge where the lowering flames of that common scholarship might be tended and kept alive until the return of better days. After all, he reminded his listeners, the War must end some time, and when that happy hour arrived it would be well to have arrangements made for a nucleus which could set about to reknit the academic bonds that hostilities had so rudely snapped apart. Such a nucleus, such an "asylum" for free scholarly research, could best be set up in a neutral land. The Scandinavian countries, Stang thought, would be especially well adapted for this purpose. 31 Ibid., p. 436. What Koht did to establish cooperation on an international scale among historians after the War, is referred to above, p. 68. 3 2 F. Stang, "Et international! videnskabelig Akademi," Tidens Tegn, July 1,

1917, published separately as Verdensakademier: Norden som Centraisted for internatiorudt videnskapelig Arbeide (Christiania, 1918) ; cf. also F. Stang, De

norske Akademiplaner (Christiania, 1918). From a viewpoint more assertively national than Stang's, W. C. Β rigger has debated the matter in Aftenposten, July 17, 18, 1917; Feb. 9, 15, 16 and March 5, 7, 8, 1919.

284

THE BACKGROUND

RECONSIDERED

The three Northern countries could divide the fields of research among them, he went on, and each could specialize on its own choices, concentrating the work as far as possible in a few research institutions that were not to be concerned with teaching. In such an eventuality, he suggested, the Nobel Institute might readily transform itself—perhaps with some assistance from the Nansen Fund—into an academy for international law and related disciplines. Without any question such a body would have to be international in its character, but it would simultaneously, thought Stang, impart an unmistakable stimulus to Norwegian public life." Stang'e proposals aroused no little enthusiasm,34 and

before

long they were acted upon in responsible quarters. In Sweden they led to no direct consequences, but in Denmark energies were released which resulted in the establishment of the Rask0rsted Fund, that is, "Denmark's International Research Fund," with a capital of 5,000,000 kroner set aside from public funds. In Norway the results were almost as significant, for they led to the establishment, in 1919, of the State's Research Fund of 3,000,000 kroner. While nothing came of the suggestion to make the Nobel Institute an international body, Stang did have the satisfaction of helping another research institute get under way. The State's Research Fund advanced the income from 1,000,000 kroner for an institute, on condition that a similar income be forthcoming elsewhere. The municipality of Christiania then set about by successive appropriations to build up a corresponding fund of 1,000,000 kroner and when these matters had been arranged there went into operation in 1924 The Institute of Comparative Culture. Under its auspices a number of distinguished scholars have lectured, including some from former warring powers, and under its imprint several 8 3 This suggestion of Stang's may be thought of as a descendant—collateral rather than direct—of those ambitious plans for an international Institute which engaged so much attention in the early years of the century. Cf. supra, pp. 148-58. « Cf. "Professor Stangs Foredrag," Tidens Tegn, 1917, No. 179.

THE BACKGROUND RECONSIDERED

285

scholarly works have appeared. Stang is the chairman of the Institute." This Institute is not avowedly interested in the peace cause in the same way as the Nobel Institute, for example, but the activities of the two are certainly tangent to one another, and The Institute of Comparative Culture owes its very existence to the profound conviction that European culture is at bottom a unity that is not permanently divisible. If this premise is valid, it follows that the maintenance of that culture's indivisibility is a very positive contribution to the preservation of European peace. It was true, admitted Stang, that the distinguishing mark of our day was a universal emphasis upon the idea of nationality, but behind the national contrasts, he insisted, lay an original unity. It was this unity the Institute sought to disclose and illuminate by fostering research in comparative culture. As one passage put it while the project was still in a formative state, the contemplated Institute would fit itself "to lay the spiritual basis for that League of Nations" which men at the close of the War were about to raise. 36 There is a certain inherent logic, one may say, about the circumstance that The Institute of Comparative Culture has its quarters in the building of the Nobel Institute. CONCLUSION

When the fortieth anniversary of Nobel's death was observed in December, 1936, the international situation seemed to belie completely that optimistic faith in social and scientific progress which Nobel had shared with his contemporaries. Since his day we have come through a War of cosmic proportions, and, in the subsequent process of readjustment, the liberal democratic tradition has been rudely challenged by several upstart dicta3 5 A s such he has given an account of the preliminaries leading to the establishment of the Institute in his Institutet for sammenlignende Kulturforskning (Oslo, 1931), pp. 9-33. s» Ibid., p. 17.

286

THE BACKGROUND

RECONSIDERED

torships. What democracy finds most disconcerting is the way in which these dictatorships elevate to positions of responsibility and authority the raucous, pugnacious layers of our common human mentality, layers which, if our society is to be in any sense well ordered, will have to be kept in some subjection to the more rational and civilized levels of our mental life. These dictatorships seemingly find it indispensable to their welfare and prosperity to provoke friction and threaten hostilities in international affairs. Such at any rate seems to be the lesson of Mussolini's war in Ethiopia, of Hitler's rearmament program and his regarrisoning of the Rhineland, of the intervention by both in the S p a n i s h revolt, and of the renewed encroachments

by Japanese miltarists on China. Whatever else may be said about the international tangle, it is at any rate a world far removed from the world which Nobel and his generation anticipated. We may be tempted to ask whether the fundamental assumption upon which he made his bequest—that by human endeavor wars can be made less prevalent and less frequent— has not been completely invalidated, and whether therefore the Peace Prize itself is not being distributed on assumptions that can no longer be accepted as sound or efficacious. An affirmative answer to this query, even though it be logical, is not apt to be final. Much as they want to honor their heroes of war, men will in the future, as in the past, wish to honor also their heroes of peace. While certain impulses in our individual and social make-up have heretofore helped to make war a recurring phenomenon, there are others which lead us to crave security and the opportunity to live and work out the potentialities of our individual lives and to resolve the complexities of our social heritage. In the long run these impulses may prove more firmly grounded in our common nature than the others. Wars may be entered upon with a good deal of enthusiasm, but once they are well under way we often find deep-seated longings for peace, and every war ends in some kind of a peace. The

THE BACKGROUND RECONSIDERED

287

outlook may be dark, but logic and history nevertheless indicate that men will continue to have use in the future for some distinction such as the Nobel Peace Prize. If this be accepted, there may then be some cause for satisfaction in the circumstance that this Prize is administered by Norway. It is, that is to say, in the keeping of a people which, together with its nearest neighbors, has proven its desire for peace by remaining neutral throughout the long succession of provocations to which it was subjected during the World War. Undoubted too is its determination to remain neutral, or at any rate to remain outside the area of hostilities as long as possible, in the unfortunate event of there being another conflagration of dimensions comparable to the great conflict of 1914-18. This may prove to be no easy task in a Europe half liberaldemocratic and half under the rule of dictatorships, but by now Norway has some practice in the art of maintaining neutrality, and what she has been able to do once she may be able to do again. At any rate, in Norway's continued administration of the Peace Prize we have the assurance, so far as we can have any assurance in such matters, that under conditions vastly different from those Nobel envisaged, the purposes he had in mind will be perpetuated in the spirit in which he first conceived his renowned philanthropy.

APPENDICES

A

E X T R A C T FROM N O B E L ' S WILL 1 [ T H E will first enumerates certain small legacies to individuals, and then proceeds:] The rest of my realizable property shall be dealt with as follows: the capital, which is to be invested by the executor in stable securities, shall constitute a fund, the annual interest on which shall be awarded as prizes to those persons who during the previous year have rendered the greatest services to mankind. The interest shall be divided into five equal portions. One portion shall be allotted to the person who has made the most important discovery or invention in the realm of physics; one portion to the person who has made the most important chemical discovery or improvement; one portion to the person who has made the most important discovery in the realm of physiology or medicine ; one portion to the person who has made the most notable contribution to imaginative literature; one portion to the person who has done the most effective work to promote friendship between nations, and to secure the elimination or reduction of standing armies, as well as for the formation and popularization of peace congresses. The prizes for physics and chemistry shall be allotted by the Swedish Academy of Sciences; those for achievements in the realm of physics or medicine by the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm; those for literature by the Stockholm Academy; and those for the promoters of peace by a committee of five persons to be selected by the Norwegian Storting. It is my express wish that the prizes should be distributed without any regard to nationality, so that the prize may be awarded in all cases to the most deserving, whether he be a Scandinavian or not. 1

As rendered by So him an and Schfick, op. citn pp. 244-45.

Β

SPECIAL STATUTES CONCERNING THE DISTRIBUTION OF NOBEL'S PEACE PRIZE, AND THE NORWEGIAN NOBEL INSTITUTE 1 STIPULATED BY T H E NORWEGIAN STORTING'S NOBEL COMMITTEE, APRIL 10, THE

NORWEGIAN

1905

STORTING'S

NOBEL

COMMITTEE

M

C O N C E R N I N G the election of the Norwegian Storting's Nobel Committee, the Storting on August 5, 1 8 9 7 , adopted the following resolution: Upon the report of the Committee on Elections, the five persons who are to be responsible for the award of the Prize are to be elected by the last Storting of each term. The election is for six years. Two of those chosen retire at the end of three years, and thereafter alternately three and two, every three years. In addition, three alternates are to be chosen every third year. Those retiring may be reëlected. On April 1, 1 9 0 3 , the Storting decided that the terms are to be as of the next January l . 2 112 For each calendar year the Nobel Committee chooses a Chairman and a Vice-Chairman. The Chairman is to prepare the matters presented to the Committee and summons the members to Translation by the present writer. On June 24, 1937, the Storting voted an additional regulation—presumably it will be added to fl 1—providing that " I f any member of the Committee is appointed, during the period of his tenure, to a Cabinet position, or if a Cabinet member is elected to the Committee, he is not to exercise his Committee duties during the period of his Cabinet service and the first alternate will serve as a member in his place." 1 2

SPECIAL S T A T U T E S

293

meeting. He assigns the moneys to be paid out and rules on matters of administrative character, concerning which report is made at the next succeeding meeting of the Committee. There is appointed to assist him a Secretary whose tenure is terminable by either party on six months' notice; he is also to keep the accounts of the Committee. The Chairman engages further office help in so far as means are appropriated therefor. NOBEL'S PEACE PRIZE

IT 3 Proposals for the distribution of Nobel's Peace Prize, if they are to be considered for a year's award, must be sent to the Committee in Christiania before February 1 of the same year. Authorized to make proposals concerning Nobel's Peace Prize are: 1. Present and former members of the Norwegian Storting's Nobel Committee, together with counsellors at the Norwegian Nobel Institute; 2. Members of ministries and national assemblies of the various countries; together with members of the Inter-Parliamentary Union; 3. Members of the Court of International Arbitration at The Hague; 4. Members of the commission of the International Peace Bureau; 5. Members (membres et associés) of the Institute of International Law; 6. University professors who lecture on political science and jurisprudence, history and philosophy; 7. Persons who have received Nobel's Peace Prize. H

Nobel's Peace Prize may be awarded also to institutions and societies.

294

SPECIAL

STATUTES

T H E NORWEGIAN NOBEL

INSTITUTE

Ii 5 The Nobel Institute is established and administered by the Norwegian Storting's Nobel Committee in accordance with the basic Statutes of the Nobel Foundation. 1Ï6 The aim of the Institute is to observe the development of international relations, especially the work f o r their peaceful settlement, and thereby to guide the Committee in the prize awarding. In addition, it is to work for mutual understanding and appreciation, for peaceful intercourse, justice, and brotherhood among the peoples.

IT 7 The Institute has a library, a selection of periodicals, and a reading room. These will serve scholarly activity and public enlightenment. The Institute may out of its means support activities of this type other than its own, at home or abroad.

118 The Nobel Committee determines the expenses of the Institute and appoints its personnel. An annual report is submitted to the Storting.

c DECISIONS ON PRIZES 1901

Divided between Jean Henri Dunant (1828-1910), who gave material encouragement to the founding of the Red Cross, and Frédéric Passy (1822-1912), one of the founders of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. 1902 Divided between Élie Ducommun (1833-1906), Secretary of the Permanent International Peace Bureau at Berne, and Albert Gobat (1843-1914), the first Secretary-General of the Inter-Parliamentary Bureau. 1903 Awarded to Sir William Randal Cremer (1828-1908), one of the founders of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. 1904 Awarded to the Institute of International Law. 1905 Awarded to Baroness Bertha von Suttner (1843-1914), founder of the Austrian Peace Society and author of Lay Down Your Arms (1889). 1906 Awarded to Theodore Roosevelt (1858-1919), President of the United States from 1901 to 1909. 1907 Divided between Ernesto Teodoro Moneta (1833-1918), founder of the Lombard Union: Society for International Peace, and Louis Renault (1843-1918), adviser to the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 1908 Divided between Klas Pontus Arnoldson (1844-1916), founder of the first Swedish peace society, and Fredrik Bajer (1837-1922), founder of the Danish Peace Society and active in the formation of the Permanent International Peace Bureau at Berne. 1909 Divided between Auguste Marie François Beernaert (1829-1912), President of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, and Paul Henri Benjamin Balluat, Baron

296

1910 1911

1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919

1920 1921

1922 1923 1924 1925

D E C I S I O N S ON P R I Z E S d'Estournelles de Constant de Rebecque (1852-1924), founder of the French Inter-Parliamentary group. Awarded to the Permanent International Peace Bureau at Berne. Divided between Tobias Michel Carel Asser (18381913), adviser to the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Alfred Hermann Fried (1864-1921), editor of Die Friedens-Warte. Reserved; in 1913 awarded to Elihu Root (1845-1937), United States Secretary of State. Awarded to Henri La Fontaine (1854—), Belgian pacifist. Reserved; in 1915 added to the Special Fund. Reserved; in 1916 added to the Special Fund. Reserved; in 1917 added to the Special Fund. Awarded to the International Committee of the Red Cross. Reserved; in 1919 added to the Special Fund. Reserved; in 1920 awarded to Woodrow Wilson (18561924), President of the United States from 1913 to 1921. Awarded to Léon Victor Auguste Bourgeois (18511925), French statesman and social philosopher. Divided between Karl Hjalmar Branting (1860-1925), Social Democratic leader in Sweden, and Christian Lous Lange ( 1 8 6 9 — ) , Secretary-General of the Inter-Parliamentary Bureau. Awarded to Fridtjof Nansen (1861-1930), High Commissioner of the League of Nations. Reserved; in 1924 added to the Special Fund. Reserved; in 1925 added to the Special Fund. Reserved; in 1926 divided between Sir Austen Chamberlain (1863-1937), British Minister of Foreign Af-

D E C I S I O N S ON P R I Z E S

297

fairs, and Charles Gates Dawes (1865—), banker and Vice-President of the United States. 1926 Divided between Aristide Briand (1862-1932), French Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Gustav Stresemann (1878-1929), German Minister of Foreign Affairs. 1927 Divided between Ferdinand Buisson (1841-1932), French pacifist, and Ludwig Quidde (1858—), German pacifist. 1928 Reserved; in 1929 added to the Special Fund. 1929 Reserved; in 1930 awarded to Frank Billings Kellogg (1856—), former United States Secretary of State. 1930 Awarded to Lars Olof Jonathan (Nathan) Söderblom (1866-1931), Archbishop of Uppsala. 1931 Divided between Jane Addams (1860-1935), American social worker, and Nicholas Murray Butler (1862—), President of Columbia University and President of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. 1932 Reserved; in 1933 added to the Special Fund. 1933 Reserved; in 1934 awarded to Sir Norman Angeli (1874—), English publicist and pacifist. 1934 Awarded to Arthur Henderson (1863-1935), English labor leader and peace worker. 1935 Reserved; in 1936 awarded to Carl von Ossietzky (1889—), German pacifist and editor. 1936 Awarded to Carlos Saavedra Lamas (1880—), Argentinian statesman. 1937 Awarded to Edgar Algernon Robert Cecil, Viscount Cecil of Chelwood (1864—), English statesman and peace advocate, President of the League of Nations Union in Great Britain.

D S U B S I D I E S G R A N T E D BY THE NOBEL COMMITTEE PERIOD

STORTING'S

FOR

THE

1931-1936

PERIODICALS AND PUBLICATIONS

Nordisk Tidsskrift

Mellanfolkligt

for international

Ret

Samarbete

Die Friedens-Warte

1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936

kr. kr. kr. kr. kr. kr.

2,500 5,500 4,500 5,000 4,000 4,000

1933 1935 1936

kr. 3,000 kr. 3,000 kr. 3,000

1934 1935 1936

kr. 3,000 kr. 3,000 kr. 3,000

1931 1931

kr. 800 kr. 1,000

1934

kr. 3,000

1932 1933

kr. 1,000 kr. 1,000

1934 1935 1936

kr. 2,400 kr. 2,400 kr. 3,000

1934

kr. 3,000

INDIVIDUALS

Carl Bonnevie, for a visit to Russia Ole Just, to study the Hague Court Ole Just, to publicize the work of the League of Nations Frede Castberg, for legal and constitutional studies in Germany O. F. Olden, to visit the United States Ludwig Quidde, for a study on the peace movement in Germany during the War

Karl Strupp, to prepare a treatise on the Permanent Court of International Justice . . . .

S U B S I D I E S GRANTED Arnold R e s t a d , to participate in the Codification Commission of the Académie diplomatique internationale Lise Lindbaek, for assistance in preparing a work on Norway and the League of Nations Arne Ording, to facilitate publication of a work on the First International

299

1935

kr. 1,000

1936

kr. 5,000

1936

kr. 4,000

ORGANIZATIONS AND INSTITUTIONS Institute of International Law The Northern Folk High-School at Geneva

Disarmament Committee of the Women's International Organizations

An international commission, to issue a bibliography of the peace cause (grant of 6,000 kroner spread over two years) Academic section of the Norwegian League of Nations Association International Peace Bureau International Institute of Intellectual Cooperation International Bureau of Education at Geneva . . Norwegian Committee for the Coordination of International Studies Academy of Science in Oslo, to assist in the preparation by an international commission, of a Dictionary of International Law Terminology

1932 1931 1932 1935

kr. kr. kr. kr.

7,500 3,000 2,250 1,000

1932 1934 1936

kr. 2,000 kr. 2,000 kr. 2,000

1934 1935

kr. 3,000 kr. 3,000

1934 1934

kr. 1,000 kr. 5,000

1934 1935

kr. 5,000 kr. 4,000

1936

kr. 3,000

1936

kr. 3,000

BIBLIOGRAPHY T H I S bibliography is confined, with a few exceptions, to titles actually cited in the text. In the case of books published at Oslo, the place of publication is given as Christiania, before January 1, 1925, and as Oslo subsequent to that date. Many anonymous articles, the bulk of them appearing either in acknowledged peace organs or in the daily press, which each year comments freely on the decisions on prize awards, have here been given a separate listing only when they are of major importance to this study. UNPUBLISHED SOURCES

The officers of Norway's Peace Union have in their care: Norges Fredsforening, Forhandlingsprotokol, 1916-24, 1925—. The earlier files could not be located in the summer of 1934.

In the Storting's secretarial offices the Secretary of the Norwegian branch of the Inter-Parliamentary Union has custody of: Stortingets Fredsforening, Arkivet, 1890-1906. Stortingets Fredsforenings Forhandlingsprotokol,

1901—.

At the University Library in Oslo there are Bj0rnson materials, directly relevant to this study, in: Brev Sämling, Nos. 2, 81 (the Br0chner letters). MS. 961 f° D 2 . MS. 989 8°.

The archives of the Norwegian Nobel Institute possess the several plans submitted when the Institute was being projected: Nobelkomiteen, Forelceg vedkommende Nobelinstitutet: I. Udfeast til Statuier for Nobel-Institutet i Christiania written Drolsum draft).

(the type-

302

BIBLIOGRAPHY

II. Forslag til Statuter, etc. Bilag A. Bemerkninger til Chevalier Descamps Vdkast for et Institut Nobel de la Paix . .., med motiver af senator Leo Mechelin. Bilag Β. Bemerkninger til Chevalier Descamps Vdkast til Statuter for et Institut Nobel de la Paix af professor L. von Bar. Bilag C. Rigsadvokat Getzs Udkast til Statuter for et norsk Nobelinstitut. Bilag D. Bemerkninger til Rigsadvokat Getz's Vdkast til Statuter for et norsk Nobelinstitut af senator Mechelin. III. V rdversitetskommissionens Indstilling. Statuter for Det norske Nobelinstitut i Kristiania. Det norske Stortings Nobelkomite. Redegjjrelse for Nobels Fredspris (annual report on candidates by the Institute counsellors and the Director; printed, but only for confidential use, and not available to scholars).

PUBLISHED MATERIALS

A Aall, Anathon, "Om Faedrelandsfclelse og den verdensmenneskelige Bevissthet: Et Principopgj0r og et Program." Samtiden, Vol. XXVI, pp. 205-20. Aarrestad, Sven, "Asbj0rn Kloster." Menneskevennen, 1923, pp. 401-4. Om Avveepning. Oslo, 1928. Den stprste Sak i vir Tid. Med Forord av biskop St0ylen. Bergen, 1930. Ârsberetning fra det norske Stortings Nobelkomite for 1936. Presumably to be printed in Part V of Stortings Forhandlinger for 1937. Aftenposten. Christiania, 1860—. Aftonbladet. Stockholm, 1930—. Agder. Flekkefjord, 1877—. The subtitle has varied. For a time, in the nineties, it was Liberalt Blad for Flekkefjord og omliggende Bygder. Akademisk Revy: Tidsskrift for norske Akademikere. Christiania, 1918-22. Continuation of Minerva, 1912-18. American-Scandinavian Review, The. New York, 1913—. Amundsen, Hans, "Halvdan Koht, Norway's Foreign Minister," The American-Scandinavian Review. Vol. XXIII, pp. 341-45. Amundsen, Sverre S., Fredssaken, Oslo, [1928]. Andersen, Vilh., "Bj0rnson og Danmark." Tilskueren, Vol. L, pp. 18-30.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

303

Arbeidet. Bergen, 1893—. Arbeiderbladet. Oslo, 1923—. Successor to Social-Demokraten. Arctander, A. M. St., Skolemanden Viggo Ullmann. Kvitseid, 1912 [1913]. Arnoldson, K. P., Ar Världsfred Möjlig? En historisk Framställning af Sträfvandena för Lag och RäU mellan Folken. Stockholm, 1890. The English translation bore the title Pax Mundi (London, 1892) and there was a German translation published at Stuttgart in 1896. The Norwegian translation is listed separately as the next item. Lov—ikke Krig, mellem Folkene. Med en Fortale af Bj0rnstjerne Bj0rnson. Fagerstrand pr. Hjivik, 1890. Β Bajer, Fredrik, Fredrik Bajer's Livserindringer udgivne af hans S0n. Copenhagen, 1909. Norden som Republik: Nogle Ord om Nordens Enheds· og Frihedsm&l, Stockholm, 1879. Bar, Ludwig von. See Von Bar, Ludwig. Bergens Tidende. Bergen, 1868—. Bj0rnson, Bj0rnstjerne, Af mine Foredrag om Republikken. Christiania, 1880. Artikler og Taler. 2 vols., Christiania and Copenhagen, 1912-13. Bjprnsons Bren: Grotid, Vols. I-II; Brytnings-dr, Vols. I-II; Kamp Liv, Vols. I-II; Christiania, 1912—. "Freden og Fredsvennerne." Samtiden, Vol. XVIII, pp. 406-12. Cf. März Halbemonatsschrift für deutsche Kultur, Vol. I (Sept., 1907). "Great Plan by Bj0rnstjerne Bj0rnson, A." Review of Internationalism, Vol. I, No. 1 (April, 1907), pp. 5-7. Mine Brev til Petersburgskija Vjedomosti. Christiania, 1899 [1898]. Swedish edition, Uppsala, 1898. "Nobelprœmien." Verdens Gang, May 25, 1900. "Russland und Skandinavien." Die Zukunft, Vol. XIII (Nov. 2, 1895), pp. 192-98. Samlede Digter-verker. Standard ed. (Standardutgave) edited by Francis Bull. 9 vols., Christiania and Copenhagen, 1919-20. Samlede Vcerker. 3d ed., 10 vols., Christiania, 1914. Samlede Vcerker. Centenary ed. (Hundreârsutgave), 13 vols., Oslo, 1932. "L'Union des peuples germaniques." L'Européen, April 25, 1903, p. 6. Voldgift. Christiania, 1895.

304

BIBLIOGRAPHY

"Vor Synd og vor Ydmygelse." Samtiden, Vol. XVII, pp. 569-76. "Women and the Peace Movement." The Independent, Vol. LVI, (January 14, 1904), pp. 72-3. See aleo Det norske Fredsblad, Vol. I, July 5, 1894, and Vol. VI, March 30, 1899. "Bj0rnson og Nobelpraemien." Afte aposten, Oct. 31, 1904. Blehr, Randi, "Fredsarbeidet i Norge." Oversigt over Arbeide og Forhold i Norge som, berftrer de inlerntUionale Komiteer henhffrende under I. C. W. Christiania, 1920., Bonnevie, Carl, "Bekj œmpelse av Krigen i Fredstid." Social-Demokraten, April 1, 1909. Fredens Opgaver. Utg. av Norges Fredsforening. Christiania, 1917. Kommunalsocialisme og Kooperation. Christiania, 1914. "Nobel Fredsprisen." Dagbladet, Dec. 1, 1926 (No. 279). Boye, Thorvald, De vœbnede Neutralitetsforbund: Et Avsnit av Folkerettens Historie trykt med Bidrag av det norske Nobelinstitut og det Finneske Legat. Christiania, 1912. Braekstad, H. L., The Constitution of Norway. London, 1905. Br0gger, W. C., "Om Gjenreisning af det internationale videnskabelige Samarbeide efter Krigen: Hvad kan de neutrale Lande gj0re?" Aftenposten, July 17, 18, 1917. See also Feb. 9, 15, 16, and March 5, 7, 8, 1919. Bugge, Alexander, and E. Hertzberg, A. Taranger, Y. Nielsen, Oscar Alb. Johnsen, J. E. Sars, Norges Historie fremstillet for det norske Folk. 6 vols., Christiania, 1908-17. Bull, Edvard, "Krigs- og Fredsproblemer." Samtiden, Vol. XXVII, pp. 559-65. "Norges Utenrikspolitik under Verdenskrigen." Samtiden, Vol. XXVIII, pp. 194-200. and S. Hasund, Wilhelm Keilhau, Haakon Shetelig, Sverre Steen, Det norske folks Liv og Historie gjennem Tidene. 10 vols., Oslo, 1929-35. Bull, Francis, Bjfirnstjerne Bjfirnson. Christiania, 1923. Reprinted from Norsk Biografisk Leksikon. Bull, Frans, Fredstanker. Christiania, 1907. Bulletin de ΓAcadémie royale de Belgique des sciences, des lettres, et des beaux-arts. Brussels, 1836-98. Science and Letters have their separate series from 1899. B0rde, Bjarne, "Fredsbevegelsens Pioner." Dagbladet, Dec. 23, 1927, p. 4.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

305

C Castberg, Frede, "L'Excès de pouvoir dans la justice internationale." Académie de droit international, Recueil des Cours, Vol. XXXV (1931, I), pp. 353-472. Folkenes Forbund. Oslo, 1925. Grunnlovens For bud mot & gi Lover tilbakevirkende Kraft. Christiania, 1920. Mellemfolkelig Rettspleie: Forelœsninger holdt ved Det Norske Nobelinstitut. Oslo, 1925. Norges Statsforfatning. 2 vols., Oslo, 1935. "Retsvidenskapens Metode." Samtiden, Vol. XXXVII, pp. 124-32. Rettstenkning og Fredspolitikk. Oslo, 1928. See also Nordisk Tidsskrift for international Ret, passim. Christianssands Tidende. Christianssand, 1883—. D Dagbladet. Christiania, 1869—. Dagens Nyheter. Stockholm, 1864—. Dagsavisen. Christiania, 1897-1911. From 1898 called Kristiania Dagsavis. Dagsposten. Trondhjem, 1877—. Descamps, Édouard, "La Fondation Nobel et les institutions auxiliaires qu' elle comporte: projet d'érection d' un Institut Nobel de la paix." Bulletin de ΓAcadémie royale de Belgique, 1900, pp. 736-49. Dovre. Rtfros, 1894—. Dupuis, Charles, Le Droit des gens et les rapports des grandes puissances avec les autres états avant le pacte de la Société des Nations. Paris, 1921. E Esieland, Lars, "Viggo Ullmann." Norsk Aarbok, 1930, pp. 60-70. Européen, U. Paris, 1901-06. Evening Post. New York, 1801—. Bears the title New York Post since 1934. F Faines, Oscar J., National Romanticism in Norway. New York, 1933. "The Scandinavian Peoples in the League of Nations." The American-Scandinavian Review, Vol. XXII, pp. 201-17.

306

BIBLIOGRAPHY

"When Oslo Fêted Theodore Roosevelt as the Winner of the Nobel Peace Prize." Nordisk Tidende (Brooklyn), Magasinet, Vol. I, No. 1 (May 9, 1935), pp. 12-13. Fett, Harry, "Carl Berner 1841-1918." Foreningen til norske Fortidsmindersmaerkers Bevaring, Aarsberetning for 1919, pp. 1-4. Folkeforbundet. Mài og Organisasjon. Utgitt av Folkeforbundets Sekretariat. Pâ Norsk ved Norsk akademisk Folkeforbundsgruppe. Oslo, 1931. Folkefred: Norges Fredsforenings Maanedskrift. Christiania, 1919-23. Folketidende. Trondhjem, 1883—. Folkets Β lad. Flekkefjord, 1900. Nos. 1-26. Foreningen til norske Fortidsmindersmaerkers Bevaring. Aarsberetning, 1845—. Forposten. Christiania, 1900-07. Title changed to Posten in 1905. Forum, The. New York, 1886-1930. Changed to The Forum and Century, 1930—. Fred: Tidsskrift for Folkeret og Voldgift. Christiania, 1898-1907. Fred paa J orden: Organ for norske Presters Fredsforening. Bergen, 1919-22. Fredsbanneret. Edited by T. Sandst0l. Stavanger, 1907-17. See also Stavanger Fredsbanner. "Fredsm0det i Göteborg." Verdens Gang, Aug. 22, 1885. "Fredsprisen og den svenske Presse." Morgenbladet, Dec. 11, 1906. "Fredssagen og Selvstyret." Verdens Gang, Aug. 7, 1885. "Fredssagen: Redaktor 0yen interviewet." Handelsbladet, 1905. No. 4. Freds-Tidende. Christiania, 1901-3. Fremad: Social-Demokratens Landsudgave. Christiania, 1895-1900. See also Morgengryet. Frilyndte Ungdomen, Den. Namsos and elsewhere, 1917—. G Gathorne Hardy, G., Norway. London, 1925. Getz, Bernhard, Om Demokratiet. Christiania, 1885. Cf. Morgenbladet, 1885, Nos. 186, 188, 190, 192. Gjelsvik, Ν. M., "Forliksfred." Syn og Segn, Vol. X X I I I , pp. 41-46. "Grunnarne til Krigen." Syn og Segn, Vol. X X , pp. 310-18. "Imperialismen." Syn og Segn, Vol. X X I I I , pp. 230-40. "Det Internationale Ceremoniel og Suveraeniteten." Samtiden, Vol. XVI, pp. 230-35. "Mistru innetter, Saueskap utetter." Syn og Segn, Vol. X X V , pp. 292-96, 305-18. "Nogen Betragtninger i Anledning av Krigen." Samtiden, Vol. XXV, pp. 460-68.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

307

"Ypiiet fraa Folkesjaelelaera, Folkeretten og Utanrikspolitiken." Syn og Segn, Vol. XXIII, pp. 289-309, 413-23, 433-50. Gjerl0w, Olaf, Norges Politiske Historie: Hftires Iruisats fra 1814 til ldag. 3 vols., Oslo, 1934-36. Gjerset, Knut, History of the Norwegian People. 2 vols., New York, 1915. New ed. in one vol., New York, 1927. Gram, Gregers, "Francis Hagerup." Ukens Revy, 1921, pp. 167-73. [Gran, Gerhard], "1904." Samtiden, Vol. XV, pp. 1-7. Gulbrandsen, Η. Α., Et staternes Forbund for Retsavgjprelse og Fred. Christiania, 1917. H Hagerup, F. G., "Bernhard Getz: Foredrag i Kristiania Videnskabsselskab den 8de November 1901." Aftenposten, 1901, Nos. 801, 804. Reprinted in Tidsskrift for Retsvidenskab, 1901, pp. 341-357. • Folkerett i Fredstid: Efter Forfatterens ufullendte Manuskript. Fullf0rt og utgitt av Thorvald Boye. Oslo, 1932. "Fredskonferencerne og den moderne Fredsbevaegelse." Tilsteueren, Vol. I (1909), pp. 351-67. "Internationalisme." Aftenposten, March 8, 1914 (No. 122). Handelsbladet. Christiania, 1903—. Hanson, John Frederick, Light and Shade from the Land of the Midnight Sun. Oskaloosa, Iowa, 1903. Hardy, G., see Gathorne Hardy, G. Hedvall, Yngve, "Alfred Nobel, Inventor of Dynamite and Patron of Peace." The American-Scandinavian Review, Vol. XIV, pp. 91-96. Heisingborgsposten. Heisingborg, 1890. Continuation of Skàne-Halland. Hennig, Richard, Alfred Nobel, der Erfinder des Dynamits und Gründer der Nobelstiftung; eine biographische Skizze. Stuttgart, [1912]. Hertzberg, Ebbe (in collaboration with J. Bull-Torn0e), Det europœiske Landbosamvirke. Christiania, 1900. Historisk Tidsskrift. Christiania, 1869—. "How Wars Will Come to an End." The Forum, Vol. LXXIV (August, 1 9 2 5 ) , pp. 194-98.

Hwass, Leonard, "Nobel's Ideas Not Carried Out." New York Evening Post, Feb. 14, 1914, Part III, Supplement section, pp. 1, 3. — -"Nobels Testament" Die Woche, Vol. XVI, No. 2 (Jan. 10, 1 9 1 4 ) , pp. 43-46.

I Independent, The. New York, 1848-1928. Merged with The Outlook, 1928—.

308

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Indrebff, Gustav, "Halvdan Koht 50 aar." Syn og Segn, Vol. X X I X , pp. 241-54. See also Ung Norig, Vol. VI, pp. 169-77. International Conciliation. New York, 1907—. Published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1924—. International Law Association, Report of the Twenty-second Conference Held at Christiania, September lst-4th, 1905. London, 1906. Inter-Parliamentary Union (Union Interparlementaire pour VArbitrage), Compte Rendu de la IX' Conférence tenue à Christiania. Berne, 1900. Compte Rendu de la XI' Conférence. [Vienna, 1903.] Inter-Parliamentary Union, The: Its Work and Its Organization. 2d ed., re-edited and enlarged. Geneva, 1921. Isene, O. S., Fra Talerstolen. 2 vols., Christiania, 1912-17.

J Jahn, Gunnar, Statistikkens Teknikk og Metode. Christiania, 1920; 3d ed. 1937. Jarlsbergs og Larviks Amtstidende. Larvik, 1838—. Jensen, S. Bretteville, "Statsraad Jorgen L0vland 1848-1922: Kirke- og Skolemanden." Norvegia Sacra, Vol. III, pp. 272-80. Johansen, David Monrad, Edvard Grieg. Oslo, 1934. Jorgenson, Theodore, Norway's Relation to Scandinavian Unionism 1815-1871. Northfield, Minn., 1936. Journal des débats politiques et littéraires. Paris, 1841—. Journalisten. Utgitt av Christiania Journalistklubb. Christiania, 1917—. Junk, Victor, Die Nobelpreisträger Dreissig Jahre Nobelstiftung. Vienna and Leipzig, 1930. Κ Keilhau, Wilhelm, Europceiske Pengesystemer efter 1914. Oslo, 1930. "Frihet, Likhet, Brorskap—og norsk Politik." Samtiden, Vol. XXIV, pp. 129-47. — "Gevinst og taps Konto." Samtiden, Vol. X X I X , pp. 1-11. Grundrentelasren. Christiania, 1916. "Matérialisme og Spiritualisme." Samtiden, Vol. X X X I , pp. 508-24. Norge og Verdenskrigen. Oslo, 1927. Overgang til ny Pengeenhet. Oslo, 1933. "Politikere I I : Fredrik Stang." Samtiden, Vol. X X I V , pp. 614-22. "Politikere V I : Christian Michelsen." Samtiden, Vol. X X V I I I , pp. 69-80.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

309

"Politiken; VII: Carl Berner." Samtiden, Vol. XXIX, pp. 341-47. "Politikere VIII: Francis Hagerup." Samtiden, Vol. XXXII, pp. 151-61. "Politikere X: Ltfvland." Samtiden, Vol. XXXIII, pp. 469-77. "Politikere XI: Restad." Samtiden, Vol. XXXIV, pp. 44-54. "September 1936." Samtiden, Vol. XLVII, pp. 453-56. "S^lvdaleren og Guldkronen." Samtiden, Vol. XXXVI, pp. 434-56. "Vort nationale Demokrati." Samtiden, Vol. XXIII, pp. 107122. "Wienerkongressen 1915." Samtiden, Vol. XXV, pp. 43445. Kirke og Kultur. Christiania, 1919—. Formerly For Kirke og Kultur, 1894-1918. Kleiveland, Lars, "Folkevaepningi og Freden." Det norske Fredsblad, Vol. II, No. 5, p. 1. Koht, Halvdan, "Alfred Nobel og Noreg." Den 17de Mai, October 23, 1933. Den amerikanske Nasjonen i Upphav og Reising. Christiania, 1920. Freds-tanken i Noregs-togo: Noreg i den samfolkelege rettsvoksteren. Oslo [sic], 1906. "Fredsvennerne og Unionen." Folkets Blad, April 7, 1900 (No. 14). "Fredsvoner og Fredskrav." Syn og Segn, Vol. XXIII, pp. 17-29. Histoire du mouvement de la paix en Norvège. Christiania, 1900. "J. L0vland, 3 Febr. 1848—21 Aug. 1922." Syn og Segn, Vol. XXIX, pp. 1-17, 49-63. Also printed separately. "Kommunisme og Nasjonaltanke." Syn og Segn, Vol. XXIX, pp. 363-77. "Krig og Framgang." Syn og Segn, Vol. XX, pp. 385-94. "Maalspursmaale no." Syn og Segn, Vol. XVIII, pp. 169-77. "Det nasjonale Sj0lvstende Krave og Fredstanken." Freds· Tidende, I, 4S-50. "L'ŒuvTe de l'État Norvégien pour l'Arbitrage et la Neutralité." International Law Association, Report of the Twenty-second Conference Held at Christiania, pp. 37-45. The article has an English title but is in French. Also printed separately. Pengemakt og Arbeid i Amerika. Christiania, 1910. "Rett for nasjonale Mindretal." Syn og Segn, Vol. XXV, pp. 145-59.

310

BIBLIOGRAPHY

"Roosevelt og den amerikanske Storpolitikken." Syn og Segn, Vol. XIV (1907/08), pp. 25-47. "Selvsüendighed og Fred." Det norske Fredsblad, Vol. III, Nos. 1-2, p. 6. Socialdemokratíe : Historisk Oversyn fram til V erdenskrigen. Christiania, 1915; new ed., Oslo, 1932. "Statsminister Steen." Syn og Segn, Vol. VIII, pp. 193-206. "Striden med Sverige." Det norske Fredsblad, Vol. II, No. 1, p. 5. See also Den frilyndte Vngdomen, III, 1-12, and Samtiden, passim. Korsaren: Illustren Vittighedsblad. Christiania, 1894—. Kraks Vejviser for Kjpbenhavn og Fredriksberg. Copenhagen, 1863—. Title varies. Kristiania Dagsavis. See Dagsavisen. L Landquist, John, "Alfred Nobel, Founder of the Nobel Prizes." The American-Scandinavian Review, Vol. XXI, pp. 472-81. Landsbladet. Christiania, 1893-1911. Lange, Chr. L., "Bekjaempelse av Krigen i Fredstid." Social-Demokraten, April 6 and 20, 1909 (Nos. 81 and 90). Les Conditions d'une paix durable. Christiania, 1917. Published also in German, Swedish, English, and Norwegian. "Coordination et coopération dans le domaine du mouvement international de la paix." La Vie internationale, Vol. I, No. 1, pp. 61-82. Also printed separately. Brussels, 1912. "Demokratiets Krise." Samtiden, Vol. XXXVIII, pp. 536-45, 604-24. Den europceiske Borgerkrig. Christiania, 1915. Exposé des Travaux de reorganisation [Organisation centrale pour une paix durable]. The Hague, 1917. "Francis Hagerup som Internasjonalist." Tidsskrift for Retsvidenskab, New Series, Vol. I (1922), pp. 59-97. "Fredsarbeidet og dets Maend." Samtiden, Vol. XV, pp. 104-10. "The Future of the Norwegian Nobel Institute." The Independent, Vol. LXII, pp. 1060-64. "Histoire de la doctrine pacifique et de son influence sur le développement du droit international." Académie de Droit international, Recueil des Cours, III (Paris, 1927), pp. 170-426. Histoire de VInternationalisme. Projected in 3 vols., Christiania, 1919—. Vol. I constitutes No. 4 of the "Publications de l'Institut Nobel Norvégien."

BIBLIOGRAPHY

311

"Internationalisme." Les Prix Nobel en 1921 22, pp. 1-10. Printed separately at Stockholm (1924) and in Revue de Genève, Vol. IX, pp. 378-90. Die interparlamentarische Union und. die Entwicklung des Völkerrechtes. Institut für internationales Recht an der Universität Kiel. Erste Reihe. Vorträge und Einzelschriften, No. 6. Kiel, 1927. Det interparlamentariske Forbund. Tyve aars Historie. Foredrag ved Nobelfesten i Kristiania. Christiania, 1910. See also The Maryland Quarterly, 1912, No. 11 (August, 1912), pp. 3-10, and International Conciliation, 1913 (April, 1913), No. 65. Mellemfolkelig Politik 1815-1914. Copenhagen, 1925. Published in Swedish translation at Stockholm, 1924. "Mellemfolkelig Politikk eller samfolkelig Politikk." Samtiden, Vol. XLVII, pp. 1-13. "Nationale og internationale Idealer." Samtiden, Vol. XXI, pp. 55-64. "The Nobel Foundation." The Independent, 1901, pp. 2683-85. "Panamerikanisme." Samtiden, Vol. XVII, pp, 335-48. "Pasifisme og Internasjonalisme i europeisk Andsliv, forut for 'Oplysnings-tiden.' " Nordisk Tidskrift for Vetenskap, Konst och Industri, Vol. XIII (1937), pp. 333-49. "Scandinavia—Past and Future Policies." The International Review. New Series, Vol. II (October, 1919), pp. 161-68. Larsen, Helene, "Fru Randi Blehr som Formand i Norske Kvinders Fredsforbund." Nylœnde, 1921, pp. 53-5. League of Nations, Conference for the Reduction and Limitation of Armaments, Geneva, 1932: Records of the Conference. Series B. Minutes of the General Commission. 3 vols. Geneva, 1932-36. Records of the Fifth Assembly. Meetings of Committees: Minutes of the Third Committee. Geneva, 1924. Lederer, Eduard, Bjftrnson et Apponyi. Prague, 1921. Not accessible to the present writer. [Lees-Smith, H. B.], "The Parliamentary System in Norway." Journal of Comparative Legislation and International Law. Series 3, Vol. V, pp. 35-46. Lescoffier, Jean, [Björnson. La Seconde Jeunesse?] Essai sur dix années de la vie de Björnstjerne Björnson 1868-1878. Paris, 1932. Lie, Mikael, "Krigen og Forfatningslivet." Samtiden, Vol. XXVIII, pp. 584-99. "Et par Ord om Freds- og Forsvarssaken." Samtiden, Vol. XXIX, pp. 466-68. Rets- og Fredsproblemer. Christiania, 1917.

312

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Stormagterne og de smaa Nationer. Christiania, 1912. Lindhagen, Carl, Carl Lindhagens Memoarer. Projected in 3 vols., Stockholm, 1936—. Carl Lindhagen tillägnas denna Bok som en Hyllning pâ Sextioársdagen. Stockholm, 1920. Lindstjíl, Tallak, Stortinget og Statsraadet 1814-1914. 4 vols, in 2, Christiania, 1914-15. Lund, John, Histoire de Norvège. Translated after the German translation by Gaston Moch. Christiania, 1899. L0ken, H&kon, "Nobel-Fredsprisen til Wilson!" Ν orges Handels- og S)0fartstidende, Dec. 5, 1918 (No. 334). Urolige Tider: Billeder og Minner fra Ungdoms- og Studentertiden, 1875-1881. Christiania, 1923. "Ytre og indre Fred. Venstres Program." Norges Venstreforeningi Skrifter, No. 11. Christiania, 1915. LfSvland, J0rgen, "Christian Lous Lange." Folkefred, Vol. IV, No. 1, pp. 1-2. " I Maalstriden, Svar til professor J . E. Sars." Samtiden, Vol. X X I , pp. 121-28. "Mellemfolkelig Voldgift." Samtiden, Vol. XV, pp. 412-16. Menn og Minner fra 1905: Av statsminister J. L^vlands papirer. Utgit av Torkell J. L0vland. Oslo, 1929. "Rutenarne." Syn og Segn, Vol. XV, pp. 49-51, 97-105. "Rutenerne og deres nationale Kamp." Samtiden, Vol. XV, pp. 565-61. "Vestmagternes Forstaaelse." Samtiden, Vol. XV, pp. 274-88. Lffvland, Torkell I., "Norges Fredsforening gjennem 40 âr." Verden Venter, Vol. Ill, No. 7, pp. 54-55. M Maryland Quarterly. Baltimore, 1910-12. März: eine Wochenschrift. Munich, 1907-17. MellanfolMigt Samarbete. Tidskrift utg. av Informationsbyrân for Fredsfrâgor och mellanfolkligt Samarbete. Stockholm, 1931—. Memoirs of Bertha von Suttner. Authorized trans., 2 vols., Boston and London, 1910. Menneskevennen. Stavanger, Christiania, 1861—. Meyen, Fritz, Björnstjerne Björnson im deutschen Schrifttum. Leipzig, 1933. Midtb0, Α., Fredsarbeidet: Hjelpebok for Studiecirklar, Losjar og Lag. Trondheim, 1937. Midttun, Olav, "Maalmannen Koht." Syn og Segn, Vol. X X I X , pp. 255-59.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

313

Moe, Ragnvald, "Fredsarbeidets Fremtidsudsigter." Aftenposten, Nov. 20, 1914 (No. 589). "Fredspolitik." Dagbladet, Dec. 31, 1910 (No. 376). "Intemasjonal og nasjonal Fred." Tidens Tegn, Nov. 13, 1933 (No. 263). "Den internationale Fredsbevaegelse og den Italiensk-Tyrkiske Krig." Samtiden, Vol. XXIII, pp. 451-64. "Les Neutres et la Guerre." Journal des Débats politiques et littéraires, Nov. 30, 1916. Le Prix Nobel de la paix et Γ Institut Nobel norvégien: Rapport historique et descriptif accompagné d'une histoire du mouvement pacifiste de 1896 à 1930. Projected in 2 vols. Vol. I, Oslo, 1932. Tale ved den europœiske Christian Endeavor Kongres's Demonstrationsmftte for Fred og Voldgift i Calmeyergatens Missioruhus, Det store Fredsdemonstrations Mfite (n.p., n.d. [1912]). Moltesen, L., "Ved Dr. Chr. L. Lange's Afgang som den interparlamentariske Unions Generalsekretär." Nordisk Tidsskrift for international Ret, Vol. IV, pp. 237-40. Morgenavisen. Bergen, 1902—. Morgenbladet. Christiania, 1819—. Morgengryet. Christiania, 1883-92. Continued as Kristiania Nyheder, which in turn became Fremad, 1895-1900. Morgenposten. Christiania, 1860—. Morgenstierne, Bredo, "Mindetale over minister dr. Francis Hagerup." Forhandlinger i Videnskabs Selskabet i Kristiania Aar 1921, pp. 81-88. Moss Avis. Moss, 1876—. M0rner, Κ. Α. Η., "Notice sur l'organisation de la Fondation Nobel." Les Prix Nobel en 1901, pp. 23-29. Ν Naadland, Jakob, Penneteikningar : Garborg; Sveinsson; Steen; Vil· mann; Vinje. Skien, 1923. Nauckhoff, Johan Henrik, Alfred Nobel: Hans Liv och Vppfinningar. "Studenterföreningen Verdandis Smâskrifter," No. 334. Stockholm, 1929. New York Evening Post. New York, 1801—. Title changed to New York Post, 1934—. New York Times. New York, 1851— Nidaros. Trondhjem, 1902—. Nielsen, Yngvar, Fra Johan Sverdrups Dage: Oplevelser og Optegnelser 1884-1889. Christiania, 1913.

314

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Under Oscar ITs Regjering: Oplevelser og Optegnelser 18721884. Christiania, 1912. Ν Utende Aarhundrede, Det. Skildret af nordiske Videnskabsmaend. 30 vols., Copenhagen, 1918-24. [Nobel, Alfred], "How Wars Will Come to an End." A conversation between the Inventor of Dynamite and a Friend, which took place in Paris in 1890, as recorded from notes made at the time by E. Schneider-Bonnet. The Forum, LXXIV (August, 1925), pp. 194-98. "Nobel and His Prizes." New York Evening Post, Feb. 14, 1914, p. 6. "Nobel Fund, The Perversion of the." The Independent, 1907, pp. 1098-1100. Nobel Institute, Catalogue de la bibliothèque de l'Institut Nobel norvégien. Tome I : Littérature pacifiste. Christiania, 1912. "Nobelhemlighetsmakeriet

en

Skada

för

Sverge."

Dagens

Nyheter

(Stockholm), Dec. 12, 1906. "Nobelkomiteen." Morgenbladet, May 26, 1900 (No. 341). "Nobelkomiteens Taushedspligt." Morgenbladet, Dec. 15, 1904 (No. 666). Nobel Peace Prize, The. n.p., n.d. An eight-page pamphlet issued by the Nobel Committee. Probable date about 1905. Nobelstiftelsen, Ν obelstiftelsens Grundstadgar. Stockholm, 1901. The Statutes were issued also in French, German, English, and Norwegian. A new Swedish edition was published as Ν obelstiftelsens Grundstadgar jämte särskilda Bestämmelser angâende Prisutdelningen. Stockholm, 1924. "Nobelstiftelsen." Morgenbladet, Oct. 9, 1901 (No. 776). Ν obelstiftelsens Kalender. Stockholm, 1906—. Nordisk Familjebok: Encyklopedi och Konversationslexikon. 3d ed. 20 vols., Stockholm, 1923-34. "Nordisk Folkeh^iskole i Genf?" Morgenbladet, Dec. 1, 1930. See also issue No. 209 for 1931 and Aftenposten, July 8, 1931. Nordisk Tidende. Brooklyn, 1891—. Nordisk Tidskrift för Vetenskap, Konst och Industri. Utg. af den Letterstedtska Föreningen. Stockholm, 1878—. Nordisk Tidsskrift for international Ret: Acta scandinavica juris gentium ... Vol. I—. Copenhagen, 1930—. "Norges Fredsforening." Dagbladet, April 25, 1897. "Norges Fredsforening." Verdens Gang, June 27, 1885. Norges Handels- og Sjpfartstidende. Christiania, 1890—. Norig. Skien, 1909—. Norman, Axel Otto, "Sp0k ikke med Fredsprisen." Dagbladet, Nov. 3, 1928 (No. 258).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

315

Norsk Aarbok. Bergen, 1920—. "Norska Nobelkomittén och Fredsprismedlens Användanda." Aftonbladet (Stockholm), Sept. 2, 1905. Norsk Biografisk Leksikon. Christiania, 1921 [3]—. The eighth volume has reached the name Krefting. Norske Fredsblad, Det. Vols. I-VI. Flekkefjord, 1894-1899. Norske Intelligenssedler. Christiania, 1763—. Bore the title Christiania Intelligentssedler, 1807-1892. "Norsk Fredsforening." Agder, Oct. 16, 1891 (No. 82). "Norsk Fredsforening." Dagbladet, Feb. 5, 1893. Norsk Retstidende. Christiania, 1836—. Norsk Skoletidende. Hamar, 1869—. Norvegia Sacra. Christiania, 1921—. Nylœnde. Tidsskrift utg. af norsk Kvindesagsforening. Christiania, 1887-1927. Ny Tid. Trondhjem, 1899—. O Olden, 0. F., Sannheten orn Krigen. Stavanger, 1921. Olsson-Seffer, Pehr, "The Nobel Prizes." Science: a Weekly Journal, Jan. 17, 1908, pp. 108-12. "Om Nobels Testamente." Det norske Fredsblad, Vol. IV, No. 4 (April 8, 1897). [Oppen, M. H.], "Fredssag—Handel og Skibsfart." Jarlsbergs og Larviks Amtstidende, Nov. 11, 1910 (No. 178). Ording, Arne, Le Bureau de police du Comité de salut public: étude sur la Terreur. Det norske Videnskabs-akademi i Oslo, II, No. 6. Oslo, 1930. Den forste Internasjonale: Arbeiderbevegelsens Gjennembrud 1830-1870. Oslo, 1936. Det tredje Rike. Oslo, 1933. Outlook, The. New York, 1870-1932. Continued as The New Outlook, 1932—, Oversigt over Arbeide og Forhold i Norge som berprer de internationale Komiteer henhtfrende under /. C. W. Christiania, 1920.

0 Titles and names of authors beginning with this letter are listed, in accordance with standard Norwegian practice, after the letter Z. Ρ Papers on Inter-Racial Problems Communicated to the First Universal Races Congress. London, 1911.

316

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Pax. Julehefte for Norges Fredsforening og Verden Venter. Stavanger, 1929. Petersen, Niels, and Ingvard Nielsen, Halvtreds Aars Fredsarbejde: Udgivet i Anledning af Dansk Freds- og Folkeforbundsforenings 50 Aars Jubilaeum. Copenhagen, 1932. Playne, Caroline E., Bertha von Suttner and the Struggle to Avert the World War. London, 1936. Politiken. Copenhagen, 1884—. Posten. Christiania, Kongsvinger, Skien, 1888-93. "Praktisk Fredspolitik." Τ idem Tegn, Dec. 22, 1910. Prix Nobel en 1901—, Les. Stockholm, 1904—. Prix Nobel de la paix. Christiania, 1909. Protokoll hâllna vid Sammanträden för Öfverläggning om Alfred Nobels Testamente. Stockholm, 1899. R Refsdal, I. Α., "Bj0rnson og Bj0rnson-forskningen." Samtiden, Vol. XLVI, pp. 475-94, 540-56. Review of Internationalism, Nos. 1-3. The Hague, 1907. Revue de Genève. Geneva, 1920-24. Continued in Bibliothèque universelle et Revue de Genève, 1925—. Roosevelt, Theodore, "International Peace: An Address before the Nobel Prize Committee, delivered at Christiania, Norway, May 5, 1910." The Outlook, Vol. XCV (1910), pp. 19-21. Reeder, Anton, L'Arbitrage international chez les Hellènes. Christiania, 1912. Constitutes No. 1 of the "Publications de l'Institut Nobel norvégien." Rsestad, Arnold, Krigs- og Fredsproblemer. Christiania, 1916. La Mer territoriale. Paris, 1913. Penger, Valuta og Gull. Oslo, 1934. See also Nordisk Tidsskrift for international Ret and Samtiden, passim. S Sabro, Α., Om Fredssagen. Christiania, 1895. Samtiden: Populœrt Tidsskrift for Literatur og Samfundssp0rgsmaal. Bergen, 1890-99. Continued as Samtiden: Tidsskrift for Politik, Litteratur og Samfundsspprgsmaal. Christiania, 1900—. Sandst0l, T., Awœbningsspprgsmaalet og den socialistiske Fredspolitik. Stavanger, 1915. Fred paa J orden: Fredsforedrag i de sidste 30 Aar. Stavanger, 1912.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

317

Scandinavian Peace Associations, Extract of Report of the First United Scandinavian Peace Meeting, Held at Gothenburg, August 17-19, 1885. Wisbech, England, 1889. Schj0tt, Mathilde, "Dikka Miller, f. Anker." Freds-Tidende, Vol. II (May 10, 1902), pp. 35-40. Reprinted in Stavanger Fredsbanner, Vol. II (Dec. 14, 1906). Schiicking, Walther, and Hans Wehberg, Die Satzung des Völkerbundes. 3d ed., Berlin, 1931—, Science: a Weekly Journal. New York, 1883—. Skandinaven: Republikansk Tidskrift for Nordens Enhet, Nos. 1-8. Linköping, 1880-81. Social-Demokraten. Christiania, 1884-1923. Succeeded by Arbeiderbladet, 1923—. Sohlman, Ragnar, and Henrik Schiick, Alfred Nobel och hans Släkt. Stockholm, 1926. English translations bear the titles, The Life of Alfred Nobel (London, 1929) and Nobel: Dynamite and Peace (New York, 1929). The German version is Nobel. Dynamit, Petroleum Pazifismus (Leipzig [1928]). Stang, Fredrik, "1814-1914." Samtiden, Vol. XXVI, pp. 269-86. "Av Ole Rings Papirer: Kunde Man undgaat Riksretten?" Samtiden, Vol. XXVII, pp. 375-415. "Fra Norges nyeste politiske Historie." Samtiden, Vol. XXVI, pp. 509-49. "Et internationalt videnskabelig Akademi." Tidens Tegn, July 1, 1917 (No. 176); Cf. No. 179. See also: Verdensakademier: Norden som Centraisted for internationalt videnskapelig Arbeide, Christiania, 1918; De norske Akademiplaner, Christiania, 1918. Instüutet for sammenlignende Kulturforskning: Beretning om dets Virksomhet inntil Sommeren 1931. Oslo, 1931. "Lovbj>ker—Leilighetslove—Lovrivision." Samtiden, Vol. XXIV, pp. 529-45. "Om Rettsvidenskap : Et Tilbakeblikk." Samtiden, Vol. XLIV, pp. 106-21. See also Samtiden, Vol. XXVIII, pp. 81-96, 145-66. and Ragnar Knoph, Frede Castberg, Wilhelm Keilhau, Rett og Samfund. "Universitetets Radioforedrag," Series Β, No. 3. Oslo, 1931. Stauri, Rasmus, "Viggo Ullmann." Den frilyndte Ungdomen, Vol. Ill, pp. 37-48. Stavanger Fredsbanner. 1905-6. Continued as Fredsbanneret. Steen, Sverre, "Halvdan Koht." Norsk Biografi.sk Leksikon, Vol. VII, pp. 520-28.

318

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Steffenaen, T. J., Κ. P. Arnoldsons Foredrag seet fra et ikke-theologisk Standpunkt. Bergen, 1890. Stockholms Dagblad. Stockholm, 1824-1931. Merged with StockholmsTidningen, 1931—. Stortings Forhandlinger. Christiania, 1815—. Stortings Tidende. Christiania, 1857-1900. Forms a part of Stortings Forhandlinger, 1901—. Strehlenert, R. W., "Nochmals Nobels Testament." Die Woche, Vol. XVI, pp. 512-13. Studente[r]ne fra 1851—. Christiania, 1887—. Sundblad, Carl, Svenska Fredsrörelsens Historia Ären 1883-1919. 3 vols., Stockholm, 1903-19. Suttner, Bertha von, "Die Entwicklung der Friedensbewegung." Les Prix Nobel en 1905, pp. 1-7. Lay Down Your Arms: The Autobiography of Martha von Tilling. Authorized trans., 2d ed., New York and London, 1908. Memoirs. See Memoirs of Bertha von Suttner. "Svensk Nobel-Jalousi overfor Norge." Dagbladet, Dec. 12, 1906. Syn og Segn. Utgit av det noreke Samlaget. Christiania, 1894—. 17de Mai, Den: Norsk Landsmaalsavis. Christiania, 1894—. S0rensen, Ν. J., Fred paa Jorden. Christiania, 1896. Fredssagen: Foredrag paa den norske Fredsforenings konstituerende Mpde den 31 Juli, 1895. Christiania, 1895. Fredsvennen Klus Pontus Arnoldson. Christiania, 1897. "Kongedpmme og Republik" eller Trykkefriheden i Norge Anno 1880. Christiania, 1880. Nordens Opgave. Christiania, 1895. Τ Tidens Tegn. Christiania, 1910—. Tidsskrift for Retsvidenskab. Udgivet af Bestyrelsen for den Stangske Stiftelse i Christiania. Christiania, 1888-1921. New Series, 1922—. Tilskueren: Maanedskrift for Literatur, Samfundsspftrgsmaal o g almenfattelige videnskabelige Skildringer. Copenhagen, 1884—. Tromspposten. Troms0, 1872-1915. Trondhjems Addresseavis. Trondhjem, 1890—. Successor to Trondhjems Addressekontors-efterretninger, 1767-1889. Tyrihans. Christiania, 1892-1904. U Ukens Revy: Skandinavisk Christiania, 1914-28.

Ukeskrift

for Politik,

Literatur og Kunst.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

319

Ulimann, Viggo, Breve fra Viggo Ullmann under et Ophold i Danmark ved de danske Folkehjiskoler Vinteren 1872-73. Christiania, 1916. Ung Norig: Maanedskrift paa norsk Maal. Rie0r, Christiania, 1918-26. Union Interparlamentaire. See Inter-Parliamentary Union. Utheim, J., Vort Udenrigsstyre 18141891. Horten, 1891. V Vörden. Skien, 1874/75—. Verdens Gang. Christiania, 1868-1923. Merged with Tidens Tegn. "Verdenskrigen i Historien." Morgenbladet, 1923, Nos. 293, 297, 301, and 307. Verden Vertier: Organ for Fred og Samfundsrettferdighet. Stavanger, 1922—, Vie internationale, La. Brussels, 1912-13. Vikingen. Christiania, 1862—. "Voldgifts- og Fredsforeninger." Dagbladet, Sept. 9, 1884. Von Bar, Ludwig, Der Burenkrieg, die Russificirung Finnlands, die Haager Friedensconferenz und die Errichtung eine internationale Academic zur Ausgleichung von Streitigkeiten der Staaten. Hanover, 1900. W

Wavrinsky, Edvard, Den svenska Riksdagens interparlamentariska Grupp 1892-1917. Stockholm, 1917. Werswick, Knut, "Nobels Fredspris gjennem 20 Ar." Arbeiderbladet, 1933, No. 352. Not available to the present writer. Wildhagen, Fredrik Chr., "Bj0rnson og Europa." Nordisk Tidskrift for Vetenskap, Konst och Industri, Vol. I (1925), pp. 561-73. Woche, Die: Moderne illustrierte Zeitschrift. Berlin, 1899—. Worm-Müller, Jacob S., Boergeneralen Christian de Wet: En Skildring af Helten og hans Kampe. Christiania, 1902. Christiania og Krisen efter Napoleonskrigene. Christiania, 1922. Norge gjennem Npdsaarene: Den norske Regjeringskommission 1807-1810. Christiania, 1918. "Norges Utenrikspolitik under Verdenskrigen." Samtiden, Vol. XXVIII, pp. 266-92.

Arne Bergsgârd, and Bernt A. Nissen, Venstre i Norge. Oslo, 1933. et al., Den norske Sjpfartshistorie fra de celdste Tider til vore Dage. Projected in several volumes. Oslo, 19 [23-] 25—.

320

BIBLIOGRAPHY Ζ

Zukunft, Die. Berlin, 1892-1922.

0 0rebladet. Christiania, 1891-1924. Continued as Oslo Aftenavis, 1924—. 0stland.sk Tidende. Fredrikstad, 1878-81. 0vergaard, Aadne, "Demokratiets Fredsvilje." Det norske Fredsblad, Vol. IV (Dec. 30, 1897), p. 2. 0verland, Arnulf, "Alfred Nobels Krigspris." Ukens Revy, 1921, pp. 3-5. 0veràs, Asbj0rn. I Bjprnsons Fotefar: "Faderen" og "En glad Gut." Oslo, 1936.

INDEX A Aall, Anathon, Institute plan of, 162 Aarrestad, Sven, temperance leader, 4041 Abstinence society, formation of, 40 Académie diplomatique internationale, 186, 299 Academy, Von Bar's proposal for an international, 155 Academy of International Law, 176 Academy of Science, at Oslo, 85, 187, 299 Academy of Science, Swedish, 14, 15, 291 Act of Union, 88; changes requested in, 92, 93 Addams, Jane, 297 Addresses, prize winners obligated to deliver, 242 Advisers, jee Counsellors of the Nobel Committee Advisory opinions proposed, 154, 155, 157 Aerial bombardment. Lange criticizes British claims for, 229-30 Ajtenposten, Norwegian Peace Union disapproved by, 80 Agadir crisis, Roosevelt and, 170 Agder, 51 Agrarian Cabinet, 101, 209 Alternates, Nobel Committee, 208-9 Amendment of Statutes, 157, 256, 292 n2 Angeli, Sir Norman, 240, 242, 267, 297 Annual report, Nobel Foundation's, 183, 200, 240 Annual report, Nobel Institute's, 159 Arbitration, 49, 53, 62, 64, 184, 277; gradual employment of, 10, 281; procedure favored, 12, 25-26, 27, 28, 79, 95, 103, 178, 228, 242; proposed with Sweden, 22, 56, 61-62; in the Karlstad agreement, 99, 175; embodied in treaties, 114, 122, 125, 249; Norway's support of, 118-19, 122, 125; proposed court of, 154-

55; misgivings about, 155, 217. See also Hague Court of Arbitration Arbitration address (1890), 62, 64, 117, 118-19 (full text), 120-22; (1897), 123, 278 Arctander, S. A. B., 121 Armaments, increases in, 56, 58, 94-96, 243, 259, 286; Norwegian hostility to, 275, 278 Armed Neutrality Leagues, The, 187 Arms manufacture, the Nobels and, 4, 7 Arnoldeon, Κ. P., 23, 24, 34, 46, 117, 242, 252, 295 ; career of, 102-3 Aschehoug, Τ. H„ 149 Assemblies, popular, 37-38, 104 Asser, Τ. M., 296 Austrian approval of conference at Christiania, 112 Austrian Peace Society, 14, 295 Aviation and aerial warfare, 174, 22930 Awards: statistics on Peace Prize, 240; proposal for a Swedish veto of, 263 Β Background, the Norwegian, 272-87; criticism a part of the, 247 Bacteriology in warfare, 9 Bajer, Fredrik, 19, 34, 46, 48, 71, 102, 115, 242, 252, 277, 295 Balkan War, First, 249, 250 Bar, Ludwig von, 154-55, 157 Beernaert, A. M. F., 295 Belgium: treaty with, 125; neutrality of, 169 Bergen, 95, 111, 140, 177, 213, 214, 221; peace local at, 51, 76, 77 Berlin, 153, 202; conference at (1908), 110, 220 Berliner Tageblatt, Bj^rnson's letter to, 202 Berne, 34, 226; conferences at, 48, 107, 112; Peace Bureau at, 108-9 Berner, C., 142, 204, 205, 207, 241; career of, 214-15

322

INDEX

Bibliography of the peace cause, 187 Bildt, Baron de, joint signature of, 129 Bj0mson, Bj0mstjerne, 6, 12, 36, 41, 50, 64, 76, 81, 90, 97, 139, 207, 219, 230; career of, 16-30; small Etates given important rôle by, 25-26, 281 ; separate foreign minister demanded by, 128, 130; relations with the Nobel Committee, 191-206, 271; tariffs condemned by, 269-70 Blehr, O., 97, 135 Blehr, Randi, 77 Blekastad, S., 118 Bloch, Johan von, 196 Bod0, 113, 117 Boer War, see South African War Bonnevie, C. C., 76, 79, 186, 251, 26162, 298 Bosanquet. Helen. 188, 270 Boström, E. G. Β., 97-98 Boundary, military activities at the Swedish-Norwegian, 93 Boundary fortifications, Norway's, 66, 71, 99, 264; Georg Stang and, 96 Bourgeois, Léon, 296 Bourgeois peace efforts, Socialists and the, 78 Boye, T., 187, 218 Budgetary limitation of arms expenditure, Lange on, 230 Bugge, Chr. Α., 51 Buisson, F., 297 Bull, Edvard, 189; career of, 169 Bureau, Inter-Parliamentary, 112, 227 Bureaucracy: opposition to the, 43, 44; Institute procedures called those of a, 263 Bureau for Institute: proposed by Drolsum, 152; proposed by Getz, 156 Bureau of Commerce and Shipping, foreign affairs reported by, 127 Bureau of Education at Geneva, 185, 299 Business men, Bj0rnson's appeal to, 196-97 Butler, N. 5 1 , 297 Braadland, Birger, 209, 268 Brandt, J . C., 115-16 Branting, H., 230, 240, 242, 250, 296 Briand, Α., 259, 297 Brussels, 34, 150, 216, 226; Socialist Bureau at, 250 B ü c h n e r , G., 198, 199, 200

Br0gger, W. C., 160, 283 n32 By-laws of Institute, 159, 294 C Cabinet, see "Ministerial" Cabinet; Swedish-Norwegian Cabinet; Norwegian-Swedish Cabinet Cabinet membership and Committee tenure, 256, 292 n2 Candidates for the Peace Prize: nominations of, 144; consideration of, 154, 157, 176-77, 231-36; counsellors' reports on, 168 Capitalism, criticism of, 67, 275 Caribbean, imperialism in the, 265 Carnegie, Α., 199 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 114, 189, 297 Caroline Institute, 14, 15, 137, 147, 291 Cartoonists, criticism by, 247 Castberg, Frede, 186, 189, 298; career of, 176 Castberg, J . , 95, 100, 251 "Causes," peace efforts related to other liberal, 3 8 4 3 Cecil, Viscount, 297 Central Organization for a Durable Peace, 68, 73, 186 Central Statistical Bureau, Norway's, 220 Ceremonies of the prize award, 237-40 Certificate of the prize award, 238 Chairman, Nobel Committee, 145, 213, 224, 231 Chamberlain, Sir Austen, 259, 296-97 Christiania, 93, 95, 236, 301; peace activity at, 49, 59, 60, 62, 63, 7576, 116, 140, 150, 161-62, 174, 282, 283; Inter-Parliamentary Conference at, 111, 112, 115; proposed Institute at, 152, 153, 157; InterParliamentary Union Bureau at, 227; research funds voted by, 284. See also Oslo Christianssand, 49, 51, 95, 210 Citizen militia, demand for, 42, 56-57 Civil list, restricted, 92 Coast defenses, strengthened, 95 Collective security, Nobel on, 10 Comité international des sciences historiques, 68 Communist sympathies, 67, 169, 190

INDEX Comparative culture, see Institute of Comparative Culture Conciliation, 114, 228 Conscientious objectors, 72, 178 Conscription, social, 77 Constitution, Swedish, 87-88 Constructive work of Committee, 267 Consular question, 26-27, 71, 88, 90-92, 97, 98, 112, 122 Cooperative movement, 79 Coordination of International Studies, committee on, 299 Copenhagen, 27, 116, 218, 236 Cosmopolitanism, 17-18, 275 Council, proposals for an Institute, 152, 153 Council of the Nobel Foundation, 137 Counsellors of the Institute, 167-77 Cremer, W. R., 242, 295 Crimean War, 3, 92 Criticism of the Nobel agencies, 247-71, 265 Crown, appointive power of, 137, 138, 156 Culture, European, 283, 285 Customs union, Swedish-Norwegian, termination of, 92 D Dagbladet, 61 Danish Peace Union, see Dansk Fredsforening Dansk Fredsforening, 34, 185, 295 Dawes, C. G„ 259, 297 Defense, national, 81, 111, 114, 125, 148, 170, 173-74, 211-12 Defensive war, Koht on, 64-65 Delegates, Inter-Parliamentary, 107, 108 Democracy, 20, 41-42, 145, 178, 225, 275 Denmark, 109, 216, 254, 275, 278; Bj0mson's relatione with, 20-21, 23, 27-28; peace workers from, 277 Denmark's international research fund, 284 Descamps, É., 154, 157 Devik, O. G. J„ 77 Dictatorships, modern, 286, 287 Dictionary of International Law Terminology, 299 Diplomats, 120 238 Director of the Institute, Moe as, 17779

323

Disarmament, sentiment for, 62, 64-5, 80-81, 178, 212, 229, 251, 260, 279 Disarmament Committee of the Women's International Organizations, 185, 299 Dissenters, religious, 38-41, 118 Divided prizes, 248 Douglas, L V. Α., Count, 29, 93, 124 Drammensvei 19, Institute address, 164 Dreyfus affair, 17, 199 nl4 Drolsum, A. C., 148-49, 157 Drolsum draft for an institute, 148-53 Ducommun, É., 242, 295 Dunant, J. H„ 248, 267, 295 Dupuis, C-, 187

ε Economic and Social History of the World War, 172, 189 Economic Committee of the League of Nations, 220 Economy, public, peace and, 58 Editor for the "Revue Nobel," contemplated, 199 Educators, cognizance taken of peace by, 267 Ehrenborg, Lt. S., 201 England, see Great Britain Entente sympathies and antipathies, 170, 175 Estournelles de Constant, Baron d', 201, 259, 295-96 Ethical culture, congress on, 185 Ethics of war, Bj0rnson on the, 24, 19495 Européen, L\ aid extended to, 183 Evolution, 7, 33, 276 Executors of Nobel's will, 136 F Farmer Party, see Peasant Party Fascism, 67, 285-86 Feminist movement, 33, 38 Finance, high, peace and, 178-79, 276 Finances of Institute, 147, 154, 162, 18082, 192, 261-63; infrequent grants of prizes to improve, 162, 282 Financial crisis (1899), 97, 164 Finland, 73, 183, 201; Russia in, 17 Five-year period, grant of prize required in each, 162, 235, 282 Flag, question of, 97, 129, 136, 175

324

INDEX

Flekkefjords og Omegns Fredsforening, 52 Folkefred, 76, 77, 80, 184 Folkets Blad, 52 Folk high-school, 47, 57, 104, 186; at Geneva, 186, 299 Fontaine, H., see LaFontaine, Henri Ford peace expedition, 73, 174 Foreign acclaim, 110 Foreign affairs, 169, 176; Swedish-Norwegian, 86-90, 97, 127, 128 Foreigners, Committee and Institute to include, 140-42, 150, 152-53, 156, 192-93 Foreign minister, 90, 127, 130; Swedish, 89, 93, 121, 125 Foreign office, Norwegian, 190, 210 Foreign policy: Norwegian peace efforts and, 126, 129-31, 253, 257-58; lack of, 278 Foundation, Nobel, see Nobel Foundation France, 99, 272 Fred, 60, 61, 75 Fred paa Jorden, 78 Fredsblad, Det norske, see Det norske Fredsblad Fredsbanneret, 72, 75, 76 Fredssambandet, 73 Freds-Tidende, 61, 64 Free trade, 166, 171, 190, 269-70 Free Trade and Peace in the Nineteenth Century, 270 Fried, A. H., 184, 296 Friedens-Warte, Die, 184, 296, 298 Friis, Α., 189 G "General staff" of the Left, see Left, aggressive wing of Geneva, 153, 186; Convention (1906), 188 Germany, 99, 186, 187, 272; criticism of Von Ossietzky award, 254 Getz, B., 139, 157, 204, 207; career of, 145-46; Institute plans of, 155-57 Gjelsvik, Ν. M., 149, 207, 219, 266; career of, 175 Gobat, Α., 226, 295 Gold Medal given to Peace Prize winners, 238 Gothenburg, 34, 103, 201

Governing board of the Nobel Foundation, 137, 144 Gran, G„ 184 Great Britain, 28, 99, 122; Inter-Parliamentary Union aided by, 110, 227; shipping interests of, 272, 273 Grotius, H., 149 Grundtvigianism, 19, 104 Gustav V, 124 Η Haakon VII, 247-4β Hagerup, G. F., 142, 149, 204, 205, 207 ; ministries of, 93-94, 96-97, 97-98; career of, 215-19 Hague, The, 170, 216; library at, 198 Haeue Conference. 48, 70. 71. 73, 218, 230, 258; representation at, 107, 129, 212-13 Hague Court of Arbitration, 114, 148, 155, 161, 162, 218, 232, 243. See also Permanent Court of International Justice Hambro, C. J., 189, 255-56 Hammer, Κ. V., 34 n l , 171-72 Hanssen, Bernhard, 55, 56, 60, 63, 69, 109, 113, 115, 207, 221, 239, 268, 273; career of, 51-54; wartime donation to Norway's Peace Union, 53-54, 273-74 "Harald Haarfagre," 94 Hauge, H. N., 38, 57 Heckscher, E., 189 Heisingborgsposten, 253 Henderson, Α., 240, 242, 267, 297 Hertzberg, Ebbe, 149, 270; career of, 171 High-schools, see Folk high-schools Histoire du mouvement de la paix en Norvège, 77 Historical congress (1928), 66 Historical society, Norwegian, 169 Historisk Tidsskrift, 169 Hitler, Α., 80, 286 Holls, F. W., papers of, 199 nl2 Holm, 0 . A. L., see Liitzow Holm, 0 . A. Horst, H. J., 41, 50, 51, 55, 104, 109, 121, 123, 128, 207, 220; career of, 113-15 Humanitarianism, traditions of, 275 Hundseid ministry, 101 Hwass, L., 260-61

325

INDEX ι Iceland, Bj0rnson and, 20-21 Imperialism: peace threatened by, 175, 178, 275-76; Roosevelt's, 258, 265 Income tax and armaments, 95 Independence: national, Koht on the defense of, 64; Norwegian, 98-100, 126 Independent, The, 261 Institute, Nobel, see Nobel Institute Institute of Comparative Culture, 165, 224, 284-85 Institute of Intellectual Cooperation, 186, 299 Institute of International Law, 33-34, 143, 151, 155, 185 (Christiania meeting), 194, 218, 232, 295, 299 Institut international de statistique, 22021

Institutions, prize awards to, 256-57 Insurance, wartime, 221 Integrity Treaty (1907), 67, 99, 100, 173-74, 212, 253, 258 "Interests of state," Bj0rnson condemns, 195 Interior, Department of the, communications to, 120 International Arbitration and Peace Association, 34, 46 International Bureau of Education, see Bureau of Education at Geneva International Committee of the Red Cross, see Red Cross International Fellowship of Reconciliation, 74 Internationalism, Lange on, 227, 228 International Labor Office, 167 International law, 161, 162, 184, 216-17, 218, 273; possible fund for the study of, 54; counsellors in, 17477; Norwegian Association for, 187 International Law Association, 34, 151, 268 International Law Terminology, Dictionary of, 187, 299 International Peace Bureau, 34, 50, 62, 109, 162, 185, 232, 278, 295, 296, 299 International Socialist Bureau, 250 Inter-Parliamentary Union, 7, 34, 48, 51, 75, 102, 114, 116, 131, 143, 148, 178, 187, 195, 232, 241, 267, 268, 278,

279, 283, 295; Norwegian group of, 78, 102-16, 221; Danish group of, 102; Swedish group of, 102, 253; conference at Christiania, 112, 214, 225; Council of, 112; court project for, 154; Bureau of, 226, 296; Lange secretary-general of, 226. See also Northern Inter-Parliamentary Union Isaachsen, H., 76, 77 Italo-Tripolitan War, 78 Italo-Turkish War, 249, 250 Italy, 218

J Jahn, G., 207, 208, 220, 222 Japan, 257, 258, 272 Jingoísta, Swedish, 264 Joint awards, 234-35 Joint monarchy, 86 Joint representation abroad, SwedishNorwegian, 128 Just, O., 186, 298 Κ Kant, Immanuel, on peace, 9 Karl, Prince, 233, 238 nl6 Karlstad agreement, 98-99, 175, 204 Keilhau, W., 187, 282, 278; on modernizing Norway's defense, 81 ; career of, 172-74; lecturer at the Institute, 189; on the cleft in culture, 283 Kellogg, F. B., 297 Kloster, Asbj0rn, 39-40 Knudsen, G., 100, 210 Koht, Halvdan, 56, 57, 60, 71, 77, 101, 186, 188, 207, 208, 209, 221, 255, 256, 265, 268, 275, 278, 280-81; career of, 63-69; on a nucleus of small states, 281 Koht, Paul S., 63-64, 117-18 Kolstad ministry, 101 Köngen, drama by Bj0rnson, 20 Kongsvinger, 92, 96 Konow H, W., 47 n8, 95 Konow S Β, W., 47 n8, 50, 207, 219, 222, 277; career of, 4849 Konsulenter, see Counsellors Koo, Wellington: Lange and, 229 Krag-j0rgeneen rifles, appropriations for, 94

326

INDEX

Krig i Adamsœtten, 44

by A. W. W. 0 y e n ,

K r u p p s , arms manufacturers, % L Labori, F., 199 n l 4 Labor party, Norwegian, 68, 78, 101, 169, 209, 275 LaFontaine, Henri, 296 Lagting, 85, 86, 113 Lamas, Carlos, see Saavedra Lamas, Carlos Lamraasch, H., 188 Landsmaal, 47 , 66, 175, 203, 205, 210· 11, 264, 274 Lange, Chr. L., 75-76, 106, 162, 188, 207, 221, fuliirp 242, 267-68, 271, 277-78, 296;; on ïnfltitlltn pinna, 161 career of, 225-30; on T. Roosevelt, 265 Lange, H. M., 80 Laun, R., 189 Lavik, Α., 118 Law, international, see International law Lay Down Your Arms, 7, 295 League of Nations, 80, 101, 171, 176, 179, 185, 186, 187, 209; H a g e r u p a n d , 218, 219; Mowinckel and, 221-22; Lange and, 228-29; Instit u t e of Comparative Culture and projected, 285; Nansen and, 296 League of Nations union, Norwegian, 73, 80, 174, 185, 299 Lectureships, Institute, 174, 188-90 Left, aggressive wing of the, 56, 71, 91, 95, 107, 111, 113, 131, 140 Left, party of the, 27, 35, 38, 42, 90, 94, 97, 104, 105, 118, 122-23, 170, 203-5, 213-14, 214-15, 221, 225, 268; defection of so-called "liberals," 97 ; controls first Nobel Committee, 142 Lemmonier, C., 48 Lewenhaupt, Count Carl, 93 Liberal causes: peace and, 16, 33, 38, 48, 131 ; the Left and, 35-37 Liberalism, 173, 213, 275-76, 286 U b e r a i Left, 48, 97 Library, Institute, see Nobel Institute Library Library, materials at University, 148, 177, 198

Lie, M. H „ 175-76, 186 Liljeqvist, R., 136 Lindberg, E., 165 Lindboe, J. Α., 129, 136, 140, 141 Lindbaek, Lise, 299 Lindhagen, C., 53, 137 Literature: Nobel's interest in, 6 ; Bj0rnson receives prize for, 203 Lombard Union, 295 London, conference at, 68, 107, 112, 128 Loria, Α., 188 Lund, J. T., 50, 51, 111, 123, 139, 143, 207, 248; reports on Inter-Parliamentary conferences, 110-11; objects to foreigners on Committee, 141 Liitzow Holm, Ο. Α., 109 Lasrum, G., 165 I.elcrn, HSkon. 73, 233-34 Liivland, J0rgen, 99, 106, 123, 139, 143, 165, 204, 205, 207, 219, 241, 248, 250, 253, 257, 261, 270, 274, 280; career of, 209-13 M Maecenas, Bj0rnson seeks a, 193, 197-98 Mail service, proposed for library, 151 Mechelin, L., 154-55, 157, 183 Mediating rôle of neutrals, 282 Medicine, Nobel Prize for, 14, 257, 291 Meetings of Nobel Committee, 231 Melhus, N„ 118 Mellanfolkligt samarbete, 184, 298 Membership of Institute, proposals for, 150-54, 156, 157 Membership of Nobel Committee, see Nobel Committee Menneskevennen, 40 Merchant marine, see Shipping interests Michelet, C. J., 119 Michelsen, Chr., 98, 210 Militarism, 19, 275-76 Military expenditures, 38. See also Armaments, increases in Military training in the schools, 72, 173 Military virtues, B j 0 m s o n on the, 195 "Ministerial" Cabinet, 87-88, 89, 90, 121-22, 124, 127, 128, 129; modification of (1885), 8 9 ; Hague policy discussed in, 123-24 Minister of State at Stockholm, Norwegian, 89

INDEX Minorities, suppressed, 17, 274 "Mission," Storting's international, 279 Moe, Ragnvald, 265-66, 267-68; career of, 177-79 Monarchy, opposition to, 41, 264 Moneta, E. T., 242, 249, 295 Monument, Swedish-Norwegian boundary, 53 Morality, war, Bj0rnson condemns, 24, 195 Morgenbladet, 142 Morgengryet, 43, 44-45, 47 Morgenstierne, B., 149 Moursund, K„ 118 Mowinckel, Johan Ludwig, 115, 207, 208, 220, 255, 274; career of, 221-22 Munthe, G., 238 Mussolini, B., 80, 286 Myrvang, T., 204 M0ller, Dikka, 51, 52, 60, 76-77 Ν Nansen, Fridtjof, 165, 187, 240, 242, 296; polar expedition of, 29, 108 Nansen Bureau, 237 Nansen research fund, 224, 284 National honor, award called insult to Swedish, 253 Nationalism, 67, 228, 241, 274, 275-76; of the Left, 131 National tradition, a pacific, 278 Natural science, discoveries in, 266, 275 Naval forces and navalism, 94,95,275-76 Nazism, 67, 254-55, 285-86 Neutrality, 125, 170, 175, 217, 272-73, 281, 287; permanent Northern, 7071, 103, 124, 125; 1902 report on, 71, 114, 124, 125, 217; World War, 73, 100-101, 169, 281-85 Neutrality Leagues, The Armed, 187 Neutrals: rights of, 190; mediating rôle of, 282-83 Neutral zone, Swedish-Norwegian, 98-99, 204, 212 Nicholas I, Czar, 3 Nicholas Π, Czar, 201, 212, 258; Hague Conference called by, 70, 123 Nielsen, S., 108 Nobel, Alfred, 24, 29, 70, 85, 162, 165, 238, 254, 278-79, 282, 286; career of, 3-15; Bj0rnson and, 18, 191. See also Nobel, Alfred, will of

327

Nobel, Alfred, intention of, 248, 251, 258, 260, 287. See also Nobel, Alfred, will of Nobel, Alfred, will of, 13-15, 105, 107, 111, 122, 131, 136, 179, 201, 234, 253, 255, 259, 262, 263, 264, 266, 271, 279; implementing of, 135-46; relatives contest, 136-37; extract from, 291 Nobel, Emmanuel (nephew of Alfred), 201 Nobel, Immanuel, 3, 4, 8 Nobel, Ludwig, 4 Nobel, Robert, 3, 4 Nobel clan, see Nobel family Nobel Committee, the Storting's, 48, 68, 81, 111, 114, 147, 149, 152, 158, 161-62, 164, 175, 179, 194, 1%, 292; first Committee, 135-36, 139; Statutes of, 138-39, 231, 292-93; personnel of, 139-42, 207-30; official name of, 144; procedures adopted by, 144; quarters of, 165; Bj0rnson and, 191-206; tenure of, 208, 292 n2; autonomous character of, 262; organization of, 144, 231, 292-93 Nobel family, 3-4, 136, 137, 165, 255 Nobel fortune, 5 Nobel Foundation, 137-38, 164, 200, 204; Statutes of, 137-38, 139, 143, 147, 191-92, 200, 234, 242, 262; annual report and yearbook of, 180 nl, 183, 200; finances of, 180-81, 261; amendment of, 235, 236 Nobel Institute, Norwegian, 81, 143, 164-65, 179, 181, 226, 239, 258, 285, 294; advisory service of, 68, 164-79; plans for a larger Institute, 147-63, 281-82, 284; finances of, 180-83, 192; criticism of, 251, 263 Nobel Institute Library, 151, 158, 16667, 294 Nobel Peace Prize, 8, 11, 14, 78, 99, 103, 113, 156, 161-62, 168, 192-93, 205, 230, 251, 279, 286, 287, 291; purpose of, 178; replaced by German prize, 254; resentment over Norway's obligations to, 263-65; proposals for the award of, 293; decisions on, 295-97 Nobel resources, proposals for the employment of the, 155, 162

328

INDEX

N o m i n a t i o n s of p r i z e c a n d i d a t e s , 192, 232, 231-36, 2 6 2 ; s t a t i s t i c s o n , 23233 Nordens Fristatssamfund. 19, 102 N o r d i c racial stock, B j 0 r n s o n on t h e , 19-20 Nordisk Forening mod Krig, 46-47 Nordisk Fredsforbund, 53, 73, 166, 185 Nordisk Tidsskrift for international Ret, 184, 298 Nordmanns-forbundet, 214 Λ'oregs Maallag, 67 Merges Fredsforening, 48-49, 49-50, 52, 53, 55-81, 109, 166, 174. 184, 185. 251, 259, 262, 273-74, 277 Norske Fredsblad, Det, 52, 60, 61 Norsk Varekrigsforsikring, A / S , 224 N o r t h e r n I n t e r - P a r l i a m e n t a r y U n i o n , 52, 115-16 N o r t h e r n p e a c e c o n g r e s s at S k i e n , 63, 64 N o r t h e r n P e a c e F e d e r a t i o n , see Nordisk Fredsforbund N o r t h e r n r e p u b l i c , a, see Nordisk Fristatssamfund N o r t h e r n U n i o n a g a i n s t W a r , see Nordisk Forening mod Krig N o r t h S e a C o n v e n t i o n , 100 N o r w a y , 126, 254, 272, 273, 277-78, 28283, 287 ; a r b i t r a t i o n f u r t h e r e d by, 118-22, 123, 193, 2 2 6 ; r e s e n t m e n t over a c c e p t a n c e of N o b e l ' s a s s i g n m e n t by, 263-64; t h e L e a g u e a n d , 299 N o r w a y ' s P e a c e U n i o n , see Norges Fredsforening N o r w e g i a n C a b i n e t , 128 Norwegian L a b o r P a r t y , see Labor Party, Norwegian N o r w e g i a n N o b e l I n s t i t u t e , see N o b e l Institute N o r w e g i a n - S w e d i s h c a b i n e t , 88, 128 N o v e m b e r T r e a t y , 99 N u c l e u s of small states, p e a c e prom o t e d t h r o u g h a, 23, 25-26, 281 N y g a a r d s v o l d m i n i s t r y , 68, 101 O O d e l s t i n g , 85, 86, 113 Oil i n d u s t r y , t h e N o b e l s in t h e , 4 O l d e n , O . F., 76, 80, 186, 262, 2 9 8 ; c a r e e r of, 7 4

Olss0n, C. W., 9 5

O m i s s i o n of a w a r d s , 233 O p i n i o n s . I n s t i t u t e m e m b e r s to give, 153 Optimism, Nobel's, 6-7; nineteenthc e n t u r y . 184 " O r d e r of t h e E l e p h a n t . " P e a c e P r i z e c a l l e d a sort of, 260 O r d i n g , A r n e , 190, 299 O r g a n i z a t i o n F u n d , 181 Oslo, 214, 301. F o r m a t t e r s p r i o r to 1924 see C h r i s t i a n i a Oslo C o n v e n t i o n , 281 n27 Ossietzky, C a r l von, 69, 208, 220, 237. 254-56, 267, 297

0 Entries beginning with this letter are listed, in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h s t a n d a r d N o r w e g i a n p r a c t i c e , a f t e r t h e letter Z. Ρ P a c i f i s m , 177-78, 227-28, 2 6 8 ; l i t e r a t u r e on, 166 P a n - A m e r i c a n i s m , 34, 265 P a n - G e r m a n i s m , B j 0 r n s o n ' s , 26 P a r i s , 77, 112, 150, 1 9 9 ; proposed p e r i o d i c a l a t , 193 Passy, F., 183, 248, 260, 267 , 295 P a s t o r s a n d t h e p e a c e c a u s e , 77-78, 2 8 0 Patents. Nobel's, 4 P e a c e , N o b e l ' s i n t e r e s t in, 7 - 1 0 ; B j 0 r n son's interest in, 23-30 " P e a c e , " o r a t o r i o by B j 0 r n s o n , 23-24, 76 P e a c e b i b l i o g r a p h y , p r o m o t i o n of a, 299 P e a c e B u r e a u a t B e r n e , see I n t e r n a tional Peace Bureau P e a c e c a u s e , s u p p o r t of t h e , 40-41, 18090, 212, 216-19, 277, 279, 285 P e a c e C o n g r e s s , U n i v e r s a l , see Universal P e a c e C o n g r e s s P e a c e c o n g r e s s e s , see I n t e r - P a r l i a m e n tary U n i o n P e a c e F u n d , B. H a n s s e n ' s , 53-54, 273-74 P e a c e i n s t i t u t e , p l a n s f o r a , 158 P e a c e L e a g u e , R o o s e v e l t f a v o r s a, 2 4 3 P e a c e m o v e m e n t : g r o w t h o f , 33-45, 2 7 6 ; M o e ' s history of t h e , 1 7 9 ; C o m m i t tee's view o f , 267-68 P e a c e P r i z e , see N o b e l P e a c e P r i z e P e a s a n t p a r t y , 101

329

INDEX Periodical, plans for a Nobel, 154, 18384, 193-200 Periodicals, Norwegian peace, 60-61, 7576 Permanent Court of International Justice, 186, 187, 218, 298 Personnel of Committee, 207-30; debate over, 140-43 Petersburgskija Vjedomosti, 29 Pietism, see Dissenters Pirenne, H., 188 Plebescites, Norwegian (in 1905), 98, 99 Political economy, counsellors in, 171-74 Political history, counsellors in, 168-71 Political sympathies of Nobel personnel, 268-69 Politicians and statesmen, 267 Politiken, 252, 254, 258 Politis, N., 189 Popular interest in peace, 241 Positivism, 7, 33, 216 Posten, 57 Prahl, F. C., 140 Pratt, Hodgson, 34, 46, 48 Press dispatches on awards, 233 Prevention of war, Nobel agencies and, 270-71 Previous year's work, qualification regarding, 234, 260, 266 Principal Fund, 180, 182, 192 Prize, Peace, see Nobel Peace Prize Prize money, amount of, 238; results of saving, 162, 282 Prize winners, 231-43 Professional peace workers, 252-57, 267 Propaganda, peace, 196, 228, 268, 271 Publications de Γ Institut Nobel norvégien, 188 Purposes of the Committee and the Institute, 270-71 Q Quaker influence, 39-40, 75 Quidde, Ludwig, 187, 188, 297, 298 R Radio commission, Norwegian, 190 Rask-0rsted Fund, 284 Realism, 7, 12, 38 Recipients of Peace Prizes, 218, 232 Red Cross, ?33, 237, 256-57, 267, 295,

296; International Committee of, 237, 256-57 Renault. L., 188, 242, 253 Renovation of Institute building, criticized, 164-65 Reports on candidates, confidential nature of, 168 Republic, sentiment for a, 19-20, 41, 58, 67, 99, 102, 104, 175, 204, 225 Research asylum, neutrals to provide, 283 Research Fund, State's, 224, 284 Reserved prize money, 182, 235 Reserve Fund, 181 "Revue Nobel," Bj0rnson's projected, 193-200 Rifle Clubs, 36, 42-43, 94, 95, 148, 173. See also Military training in the schools Right, party of the, 35-37, 38, 220, 222, 223, 250, 268 Riksdag, Swedish, 89, 92, 103, 125 Riksmaal, 274 Rinde, P., 118 Romanticism, nineteenth-century, 275 Rome, 150, 153; conference at, 107, 108, 112, 129 Roosevelt, Theodore, 265, 295; criticism of award to, 99, 212, 242, 257 Root, E., 259, 296 Russia, 99, 130, 184, 186, 257; the Nobels in, 3-4; Bj0rnson and, 17, 28-30 Ruthenians, Bj0rnson's interest in the, 17; L0vland's interest in the, 274 Rœder, A. H., 188 Restad, Α., 186, 189-90, 270, 299 S Saavedra Lamas, Carlos, 267, 297 Samtiden, 171, 183-84 Sanctions, Lange on, 228 Sandnes, peace local at, 49 Sandst0l, T., 72, 76 Santiago de Cuba, C. Stang at, 96 Scandinavian countries: wartime cooperation in, 218; legal uniformity in, 223; peace nucleus in, 281; research asylum in, 283 Scandinavian Inter-Parliamentary Union, see Northern Inter-Parliamentary Union

330

INDEX

Scandinavianism, Bj0rnson and, 18-20 Scandinavian patriotism, Nobel's possible, 11-12 Scandinavian peace congress (1885), 34; (1901), 63, 64, 71 Schneiders, arms manufacturers, 96 Schiicking, W „ 187, 188 Schweigaard, Chr. H.. 135, 171 Secrecy of the Nobel Committee, 202, 236 Secretary of the Nobel Committee, 151, 152, 166, 234, 240, 249; Moe as, 177-79; U n g e as, 225 Secret Committee of Riksdag, 92 Seljord, 50, 104 Selmer-Anderssen, 0-, 167 Separation from Sweden, 71, 98, 115 Shelley, P. B., Nobel's interest in, 6, 8,

12 Shipping interests, 90-91, 171, 221, 27273 "Shortage" of candidates, 248-49 Shotwell, J. T., 189 Six points, Sweden's, 97-98 Skaar, N., 118 Skien, 117; peace congress at, 63, 64, 71 Slesvig, Bj0rnson interested in, 17, 21 Slovakians, Bj0rnson interested in, 17 Small states: Great Powers and, 187; peace rôle of, 280-81 Smith, Marie, 77 Social Democrats, 66, 67, 78-80, 106, 250, 275; criticism of group in Stockholm, 252-53. See also Labor party Socialism, Moe on peace endeavors of, 177-78 Sociology, see Political economy, counsellors in Sohlman, R., 136 South African War, 127, 170 Spain, 125; civil war in, 80, 286 Speaker of Storting, prize-awarding speeches by, 240 Special Fund, 181-82, 192, 263, 296, 297; growth of, 235, 271 Special Statutes, see Nobel Committee Stang, E „ 108, 119, 136, 222; ministries of, 92, 120, 122, 216 Stang, Fredrik, 207, 208, 221, 241, 268, 269, 285; on the cleft in European culture, 162, 283; career of, 222-

24; on the purposes of the Nobel agencies, 270-71 Stang, G„ 71, 95, 96, 99 Statesmen, awards to, 257-60 State's Research Fund, 224, 284 Statutes of Nobel Foundation, see Nobel Foundation; Nobel Committee Stavanger, 39, 72, 73, 213; peace activity at, 40, 49, 51, 60, 74, 75-76 Stavanger Ajtenblad, 75 Stavanger Fredsbanner, 75 Steen, Johannes, 42, 122, 135, 139, 207, 213-14; ministries of, 97, 121, 122, 123, 210; greets Inter-Parliamentary Conference, 112 Stockholm, 68, 73, 201, 210, 214, 216, 218; prize-awarding festivities at, 236 Stockholm Academy, see Swedish Academy Stockholm High School, 14 Stockholm Hospital, 14 Stockholms Dagblad, 253 Storm, G„ 149 Storting, 36, 53, 61-62, 76, 93, 137, 211, 215, 239, 255; Nobel honors, 11, 1213, 15, 135, 138, 150, 291; general support of peace endeavors, 13, 25, 102-16, 277, 278; political structure of, 85-86; Nobel agencies under general supervision of, 138, 152-53, 156, 200, 239, 261-62; Nobel's donation called a restriction on, 264 Storting's Nobel Committee, see Nobel Committee Stousland, C., 116 Stresemann, G., 240, 242, 259, 297 Strupp, K., 187, 298 Suffrage in Norway, 33, 97, 275 Suppressed nationalities, interest in, 274 Suttner, Bertha, Baroness von, 7, 8-9, 9-10, 201, 237 nl3, 242, 295 Svenska Freds/örbundet, 185 Svenska Freds- och Skiljedomsförening, 34, 103, 185, 295 Sverdrup, J., 50, 213 Sweden, 109-10, 141, 275, 284; Bj0rnson and, 21-22, 26-28; peace program used against, 129-31 ; prize awards criticized in, 236-37. 253 54, 254-55. 257, 264; peace workers from, 277

INDEX Swedish Academy, 137, 291 Swedish Academy of Sciences, 14, 15, 137, 291 "Swedish money," taunt about, 253, 254 Swedish-Norwegian Cabinet, 88, 89, 124 Swedish-Norwegian tension, 13, 15, 55, 56, 70, 71-72, 85-100, 183, 203, 216 Swedish-Norwegian Union, 21-22, 54, 57, 64, 117, 118-31, 264 Swedish Peace and Arbitration Association, see Svenska Freds- och Skiljedomsforening Swedish press, critical tone of, see Sweden, prize awards criticized in Switzerland, 56, 109, 125, 277-78, 281 17de Mai, Den, 264 Söderblom, N„ 242, 297 S0rensen, Birgit W., 57, 77 S0reneen, N. J., 40, 41, 47, 48, 50, 52, 64, 65-66, 77; career of, 57-61; Nobel's donation criticized by, 263 Τ Taranger, Α., 149 Tariffs, 179, 269-70. See also Free trade Teachers and the peace cause, 77 Technological developments and peace, 8-9, 269 Temperance cause, 33, 3841, 57-58, 118 Tension in Union matters, see SwedishNorwegian tension Tenure of Committee members, 202-6, 213, 215, 222, 225, 230; discussed, 207-8 Tenure of counsellors, 167 Thallaug, Α. Α., 207, 208, 209, 219, 220 Tonnage of losses of World War shipping, 273 Tranmiel, M., 208, 209, 219, 268 Treaties, Norway signs separate, 125 Troms0, 28, 113, 117, 213 Trondheim, see Trondhjem Trondhjem, 93, 95, 145

u Ullensvang, peace local at, 50 Ullmann, Viggo, 41, 50, 51, 113, 118, 121, 123, 136; career of, 104-5 Union Committee, 96-97, 145 Union with Sweden, see Swedish-Norwegian Union

331

United States, 114, 121, 122, 272, 273 Universal Peace Congress: first, 7, 34; thirteenth, 111 University (Oslo) : group from, considers Institute plans, 149, 157; halls used for Nobel functions, 239 University professors qualified to nominate candidates, 232 V Vassbotn, A. R., 208, 209 Verden Venter, 74, 76 Veto, proposal to have the prize award subject to Swedish, 263 Victoria Terrasse, Committee located in, 164 Vienna, 104, 282; funds for legation at, 92, 93 113 Vigeland, G„ 165, 238 n l 8 Von Bar, Ludwig, see Bar, Ludwig von Von Ossietzky, Carl, see Ossietzky, Carl von Von Suttner, Bertha, see Suttner, Bertha Baroness von Vose, peace local at, 50 W "Ifaß en Nieder, Die" see Lay Down Your Arms War: Bj0rnson's condemnation of, 24, 195; the Prize not used directly to prevent, 250; honoring heroes of, 286 "War medal," the Prize called a, 259 Weardale, Lord, at Berlin, 110 Webster, C. K., 189 Wehberg, H., 187 Weill, G., 189 Werenskjold, D., 165 Wexelsen, V. Α., 118 Wilhelm II, Kaiser, 258 Will of Alfred Nobel, see Nobel, Alfred, will of Wilson, Woodrow, 233-34, 259, 296 Women, Norwegian, and the peace movement, 76-77 Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, 185 Women's International Organizations, 185, 299 Women's Peace Society of Norway, 77

332

INDEX

Women's World Union for International Concord, 185 World Court, see Permanent Court of International Justice World Peace Bureau, see International Peace Bureau World Tomorrow, The, 74 World War, 169, 170, 174, 175, 176, 221, 225, 273; peace labors affected by the, 72-73, 100-101, 114-15, 116, 227, 232-33, 241, 251, 276, 281; neutral history of the, 187 Worm-Miiller, J. S., 169-71

Ζ Zeitschrift für Völkerrecht, Zola, E., 17, 199 nl4

87

0 0ksnevad, Α., 77 0stlandsk Tidende, 57 0verland, Α., 259 0vre St0rdalen, peace local at, 50 0yen, A. W. W., 3 4 n i , 46, V7, 57, 1 2 0 ;

career of, 43-45