In this and many similar utterances there is foreshadowed the interference of the State.

Indeed, the settlement of the Pennsylvania coal strike in 1903 was a clear example of such interference, and there is no question that the precedents established will be followed up on the next occasion of the kind by some arrangement even less advantageous to employees who now almost universally feel, as the present demands of the miner's union show, that they got the worst of the former decision.
The railway and mining situations in Great Britain, and the demand for the government to take some measure to protect employees against the "trusts" in this country (to say nothing of the menace of a great coal strike), promise to make compulsory arbitration an issue of the immediate future.

Mr.Roosevelt, who now proposes that the government should interfere between monopolies and their employees, is the very man who is responsible for the coal strike tribunal of 1903, which not only denounced sympathetic strike and secondary boycott, but failed to protect the men against discrimination on account of their unionism.
Were he or any one like him President, the institution of government wage boards would be dreaded like the plague.
Similarly Mr.Winston Churchill, in Great Britain, recognizes the extreme seriousness of the situation.

His position is ably summed up by the _Saturday Evening Post_:-- "Winston Churchill has propounded a capital-and-labor puzzle to his British constituents.
"To a modern state, he says in substance, railroad transportation is a necessity of life--and how literally true this is of England was shown in the general strike of last August, when the food supply in some localities ran down to only a few days' requirements.

So the government cannot permit railroad transportation to be paralyzed indefinitely by a strike.