extend as far as this.  I do not see how we can possibly prevent a kindred nation pleading for the scattered people of its own race and culture, or any nation presenting a case on behalf of some otherwise unrepresented people—­the United States, for example, presenting a case on behalf of the Armenians.  But I doubt if many people have made up their minds yet to see the powers of the Supreme Court of the League of Nations go so far as this.  I doubt if, to begin with, it will be possible to provide for these cases.  I would like to see it done, but I doubt if the majority of the sovereign peoples concerned will reconcile their national pride with the idea, at least so far as their own subject populations go.

Here, you see, I do no more than ask a question.  It is a difficult one, and it has to be answered before we can clear the way to the League of Free Nations.

But the Supreme Court, whether it is to have the wider or the narrower scope here suggested, would be merely the central function of the League of Free Nations.  Behind the decisions of the Supreme Court must lie power.  And here come fresh difficulties for patriotic digestions.  The armies and navies of the world must be at the disposal of the League of Free Nations, and that opens up a new large area of delegated authority.  The first impulse of any power disposed to challenge the decisions of the Supreme Court will be, of course, to arm; and it is difficult to imagine how the League of Free Nations can exercise any practical authority unless it has power to restrain such armament.  The League of Free Nations must, in fact, if it is to be a working reality, have power to define and limit the military and naval and aerial equipment of every country in the world.  This means something more than a restriction of state forces.  It must have power and freedom to investigate the military and naval and aerial establishments of all its constituent powers.  It must also have effective control over every armament industry.  And armament industries are not always easy to define.  Are aeroplanes, for example, armament?  Its powers, I suggest, must extend even to a restraint upon the belligerent propaganda which is the natural advertisement campaign of every armament industry.  It must have the right, for example, to raise the question of the proprietorship of newspapers by armament interests.  Disarmament is, in fact, a necessary factor of any League of Free Nations, and you cannot have disarmament unless you are prepared to see the powers of the council of the League extend thus far.  The very existence of the League presupposes that it and it alone is to have and to exercise military force.  Any other belligerency or preparation or incitement to belligerency becomes rebellion, and any other arming a threat of rebellion, in a world League of Free Nations.