Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

NORWAY.

A MODEL REFERENDUM. , (By Alex Scott.) “Comparisons,” said Dogberry, “are odorous.” And as a rule, one referendum is very like another. But in some ways the Norwegian referendum ot 1905 is unique. While thousands of tourists crowd the fiords at so many guineas per tour (tea, tips and tlhe midnight sun extra), there is a little village on the south coast which the übiquftious Thomas Cook has overlooked. Doubtless that is Fevik’s misfortune. When the writer descended on tho place the English population did not exceed three, vet, strange to say, the natives seemed to bo jogging along fairly comfortably, peaceful and peaceable. But rumours of strange happenings were in the air. For months past the question of separating from Sweden bad been discussed. Whatever tlic cause, “ incompatibility of temper ” made itself evident between the two nations, and after prolonged negotiations it was decided to ascertain the actual opinion of the Norwegian people by means of a referendum. On Sunday, August 13, 1905. every elector was to record his answer to the question. “ Do you wish to separate from Sweden? ‘Yes ’ or ‘No.’ ” NO TURMOIL. During the few weeks before the date fixed, the visitor looked in vain for turmoil and excitement; no canvassing was noticeable, no posters- on the hoardings, no politicians making out their opponents to be either knaves or fools. But the reason for the calmness was not difficult to find. It requires two sides to make a strenuous contest. Going in and out among the people the stranger heard one opinion only. A “pro-Swede” party literally' did not exist. The morning of the poll was not far advanced ere signs (and sounds) of something unusual were abroad. The echoes were awakened by the weirdest (lute hand if ns ever been

the writer’s lot to encounter. Perhaps the music played possessed some qualities appreciated only by; the native-

born. At any rate, to the scribe’s untutored oar tho result seemed “ moro spit than tune.” Each “musician” had on his “ Sunday best,” the only uniform observable being a small lozenge-shaped cap. ’Pile flautists were typical Vikings, strong, handsome, fellows, fair-haired and blue-eyed; but apparently they had selected the smallest man in the district to preside over the hig drum. Still, what tho little gentlemen lacked in dignity was made a;) in energy, and it must ho admitted ho created a great deal of noise. With martial steps these performers went n.r.nd the chief roads, and if their purpose was to arouse tho populace to the importance of the occasion, they were abundantly successful. Soon the whole rib.tiict was humming like a disturbed bee hive. One reason for holding tho referendum on a Sunday was then plain; only on that day were all tlm fishermen at home. Tint another argument against voting on a week-day

was the long distances many had to go to reach a polling-booth —journeys for which they could find time only on a Sunday. Yet so keen was the enthusiasm that no trouble, was grudged. ALMOST UNANIMOUS. Fevik stands in the “ landward district of Grimstnd, and the hall where votes were to be recorded was several kilometres out of the village. This stone building, noticeable in an area where wooden houses are almost universal, soon became tho centre of attraction. Carriages of all shapes and sh'es, from a modern sulky' to a vehicle that might have done duty in Pharaoh’s time, stood, at the roadside ns testimony to long journeys. Outside the hall'the voters (not to mention thenwives and families) gathered in groups to discuss the proceedings. To the query, “ What will the result he? there was only one reply, “ Separation ” “ And if Sweden will not agree?” A quiet shrug of the shoulders was tile usual answer. Not even the most, sanguine Norseman exneeted such a remarkable result as was declared. In contrast with 268,000 for separation, only 184 said

“No.”' In the Grimstnd district every vote was “ .Tn ” except one! Is it surprising that, in spite of tho secrecy of th c ballot, the identity of this solitary individual was soon discovered? The effect of the referendum on pub he opinion was immediate, and, as all Fie world knows, Sweden accepted the inevitable. Each nation went its own way in peace.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/HOG19260811.2.40

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Hokitika Guardian, 11 August 1926, Page 3

Word count
Tapeke kupu
708

NORWAY. Hokitika Guardian, 11 August 1926, Page 3

NORWAY. Hokitika Guardian, 11 August 1926, Page 3

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert