on and the Consuls
concerned, it should, apart from the general precept of their duty of
mutual cooperation, be laid down in the law:

that the legation is bound to guard the Consul's rights and to lend him
necessary assistance and, in matters belonging to the province of the
legation, entitled to demand information from the Consul and to give him
instructions;

that the Consul has the same duties towards the Legation as towards the
Minister for Foreign affairs;

and that, if the Consul, by participating in political demonstrations or
in another way, should openly disregard the consideration he is bound to
have for the authorities of the country he is employed in, or if an
action affecting his civil repute should he brought against him, the
legation has the right to suspend him from his office until further
notice.

6.

Extract from the answer given by His Excellency Hagerup to the preceeding
draft, on November 26, 1904.

[-- -- --]

2. No approval on the part of Norway can be expected for an arrangement
that would give Swedish authorities the possibility of interfering with
measures taken by a Norwegian authority. Also in this respect we merely
adhere to the Communique and the Protocols of December that, as a basis
of agreement, give prominence to the establishment of a separate Consular
service for Sweden and for Norway, in which case "the Consuls of each
Kingdom shall be subordinate to the authority of their own country which
the latter shall have to determine." This arrangement does not however
preclude, as is also presupposed in the Norwegian draft, a certain
possibility for the Foreign Minister to address direct requests to the
consuls.

[-- -- --]

With particular regard to the demand expressed in the "outlines" that the
Swedish Minister for Foreign affairs shall have the right--this is the,
intention according to your Excellency's verbal declaration--to
discharge in ministerial--consequently in Swedish--Cabinet Council a
consul appointed in Norwegian Council, I ventured to point out 1) that
this demand was entirely contrary to the Norwegian Constitution, 2) that
an arrangement by which a Swedish authority of state might nullify a
resolution adopted by a Norwegian authority of state would, according to
the general principles of political and international law, impress upon
Norway the stamp of a dependency, and 3) that it would therefore from a
national point of view signify an enormous retrog