WASHINGTON — George J. Titler of Beckley, W. Va., was chosen Saturday as the new vice president of the United Mine Workers union.
The $40,000-a-year job in the past has been a stepping stone to the presidency of the independent union, now held by W. A. (Tony) Boyle.
Titler, 70, at present is head of UMW District 29, at Beckley.
His selection as vice president was by unanimous approval of the executive board, a UMW spokesman said.
The board had been considering the selection of a vice president for the past week. The post became vacant with the retirement of Raymond O. Lewis, brother of former UMW President John L. Lewis.
Titler, a native of Pennsylvania, served in World War I. After that he worked in the coal mines of Iowa for 15 years. In 1937 the UMW sent him to Harlan County, Ky., where he was head of an organizing drive, which ended in 1941. He transferred that year to West Virginia where he has lived since.
Others in the running were Joe Yablonski, president of District 5 in Western Pennsylvania; Harrison Combs, assistant director of the union's legal department; and John M. Kmetz of Nanticoke, Pa., director of the union.
Titler became president of District 29 in 1942.
Although considered the dark horse candidate this year, Titler is no stranger to the political wars of the UMW.
In 1947 he was mentioned as a possible successor to John O'Leary, UMW vice president, who died of a heart attack. And in 1953 he was named by Coal Age magazine as one of the five strongest contenders to take the chair of UMW President John L. Lewis.
Since his election as secretary-treasurer of District 17 of the UMW in 1942, Titler has been a controversial figure.
He was noted as vehemently opposed to the Taft-Hartley Bill, which, he charged, was written to destroy the union.
In 1946 he lashed out at the Fayette County political "machine," charging that it would never carry a coal miner on its ticket, except for an occasional candidate for the House of Delegates.
In 1947 he spoke out against a plan to cut miners' overtime pay to 96 cents an hour. He labeled the proposal "a screwy idea."
Yet the coal official also was viewed as a man who could lend support, shown during World War II when he urged unity between miners and operators, with high wages for miners, so more defense bonds could be purchased to aid in the national crisis. And during late Gov. William Marland's administration Titler supported the chief executive's proposed severance tax on West Virginia coal. Herein lies the secret of the Standard Oil Companies desire to confiscate the UMWA.
Federal Judge Mark A. Costantino dismissed an indictment against Paul Hall, president of the Seafarers International Union, and seven other union officials who had been charged with contributing $750,000 to political candidates in 1968.
The judge granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the two-year-old indictment on the ground that the Government had neglected to press for a speedy trial and had presented an inadequate bill of particulars.
The indictment by a Federal grand jury in Brooklyn in June 1970, accused Mr. Hall and his colleagues of violating the Corrupt Practices Act, which outlaws gifts by labor organizations in Federal elections. The union had been charged with contributing to the Republican Congressional campaign committee and to the Humphrey-Muskie campaign committee.
Mrs. John D. Rockefeller gave the Nixon administration $1,500,000 when the maximum gift is $5,000. The attorney general accepted the \Vi million dollars and prosecuted a labor union that the Rockefellers are trying to destroy by buying a Benedict Arnold to take over the UMWA. There are 70,000 pensioners who are saying; how come the large oil companies of America will pay a billion to get rid of the UMWA.
The federal judge who ordered autonomy back said in substance, "There was a time that the coal operators were ruthless like a lion and it was necessary to have provisional government in the union to cope with them." Now the operators have started purring like a pussycat and now we can go back to sixteen unions and they will get along.
This union went from 600,000 members in 1919 to twenty per cent of that number in 1932 under autonomy.
The average coal digger is interested in a union that puts pork chops in his dinner pail and shoes on his kids rather than his right to elect Joe Blow as a district president. If John Doe is appointed and makes good contracts, the coal miner prefers him to Joe Blow who is elected and does not know how to do his job.
Since the eleven big oil companies have a monopoly on the energy market, uranium, oil and coal, they are trying to lull us asleep.
Why did Jay Rockefeller pick up the tab on the ex-convict Joe Yablonski in the first election in 1969 and then hand pick the officers in the Wheeling, West Virginians MFD convention in 1972, with his two counterparts Rank and Heckler saying amen.
Jay says "Coal miners, oh coal miners how often would I have gathered you under me as a hen gathers her brood, but you would not." The miners answered, "We remember Ludlow "
Jay said on Meet The Press, he had affection for coal miners. Is it not the same affection my torn cat has for my canary?
Washington Post 8/23/70 Electricity for the Future—I
Big Oil Companies Acquire Grip on Competing Fuels
First of a series
By Morton Mintz and Robert K. Warner Washington Post Staff Writers
Since 1965 the nation's largest oil company has become one of the two largest holders of coal reserves. The same corporation, Standard Oil of New Jersey, has also become a principal operator in the newest competitor to coal and oil—uranium, the source of nuclear power.
In the last five years, most of the country's major oil companies have acquired significant holdings in every fuel, a trend that could end effective competition between oil, gas, coal and uranium and result in large increases in the future cost of electricity.
The trend is especially ominous in the uranium industry because nuclear fuel is expected to produce more than half of all electricity by about 1990. Sen. George D. Aiken (R-Vt.) says:
"There is some group determined to get control of electrical energy in this nation."
At least 18 oil companies have invested in producing and processing uranium; one key step is entirely controlled by two coal firms. Although the petroleum industry now accounts for only one-sixth of uranium production, it holds 45 per cent of all known uranium reserves and makes more than half the new discoveries.
All of the 25 largest oil companies have natural gas interests, which may be inevitable since gas is usually found with petroleum. At least 11 of the 25 have significant interests in coal as well: The two largest owners of coal reserves are both oil companies, and the petroleum industry as a whole accounts for at least 25 per cent of the nation's coal production.
Six of the ten largest oil companies have interests in every other fuel. The Justice Department's deputy assistant attorney general for antitrust warned last May against the growing concentration.
"While few forms of energy supply are not subject to some type of governmental regulation," Walker B. Comegys told the Senate antitrust subcommittee, "we cannot lightly forgo interfuel competition as the most effective long-term force for consumer production in the energy field."
National Economic Research Association (NERA), a private consulting firm, compiled data for the Senate antitrust subcommittee showing the penetration of the 25 largest oil companies into other fuel industries.
Nine of the oil companies, some of them already corporate giants, had interests in all the other fuel sources—coal, gas, uranium and shale. They are Standard of New Jersey, second in sales volume among all American industrial corporations;
Texaco, eighth in sales; Gulf, tenth; Shell, 16th; Atlantic Richfield, 29th; Continental, 35th; Sun, 47th; Standard of Ohio, 97th; and Ashland, 101st. Not only are such firms buying competitive fuels, but also because of their size they are in a strong position to outbid other kinds of industries that wish to venture into the energy field.
"The acquisitions by the oil companies across the energy market spectrum. may be viewed as classic horizontal integration on a scale comparable to the formation of the trusts in the latter decades of the nineteenth century," NERA said.
"In short, the oil companies, themselves portraying their activities as efforts at diversification, are in fact systematically acquiring their competition."
This economic concentration is occurring at a time when the Country is entering an era of unprecedented demand for electric power and growing difficulty in satisfying the demand.
Over the next five years, the national demand for electricity is expected to increase by at least nine per cent annually, or more than a 50 per cent increase by 1975. In the 10 Northeastern states and Maryland, power needs are expected to grow even more rapidly.
Should these increases continue beyond 1975, and the Federal Power Commission believes they will the Nation's utilities must more than quadruple their power capacity in the next 20 years.
Opponents of the oil industry's involvement in other fuels say that the increased demand for electricity will give the petroleum industry a strange hold on utilities and on their corporations that depend on energy.
The oil industry has always dominated natural gas, but its penetration of other competing fuels was thin until the mid-1960s.
In September 1963 Gulf Oil acquired Pittsburgh and Midway, a coal company that accounts for about 2 per cent of national production.
Then, on Oct. 13, 1965 Continental Oil Co. announced a break through: An agreement in principle to buy Consolidation Coal, the largest producer, which alone accounts for about 12 per cent of total coal production.
The Justice Department did not challenge this first giant step by the oil industry into the territory of a rival fuel. The merger was formally completed in October 1966. Other acquisitions followed. In January 1968 Occidental Petroleum acquired Island Creek, the third-ranked coal producer, with about 7 per cent of annual output. In August 1968 Standard Oil of Ohio acquired Old Ben, for another two per cent. Today, eight of the ten largest coal companies are owned by oil, mineral or large industrial concerns with interests in the energy field.
In addition, oil companies such as Humble, Jersey Standard's major domestic affiliate, have been spending millions of dollars each year to acquire thousands of acres of coal reserves which they do not mine despite the fact that utilities have been complaining of a serious coal shortage.
The oil companies say that current prices do not provide enough incentive for them to produce coal, and that their coal reserves are long-range investments for the time when they are forced by dwindling oil supplies to artificially convert coal into natural gas and oil.
Oil opponents say that petroleum companies are creating an artificial shortage of coal that will lead simply to higher prices.
The same acquisition trend exists in the nuclear fuel industry. Until 1966, only two oil companies were significant uranium producers. But in 1968, oil companies did 44 per cent of the drilling for uranium exploration and development. In 1969, they did 37 per cent. S. David Freeman, of the White House Office of Science and Technology, told the Senate antitrust subcommittee last May that as of Jan. 1, 1970, petroleum companies controlled 45 per cent of the known uranium reserves.
NERA described the position of oil companies in the uranium industry as "truly dominant":
• Kerr-McGee, an oil company, owns 23 per cent of total uranium milling capacity directly and another 4 per cent through a half-ownership. This capacity exceeds that of any other firm.
• Only two companies are in the business of converting "yellow cake," the uranium concentrate that results from milling, into UF6, a compound used in uranium enrichment. One is Kerr-McGee, which has building plans for half the national capacity. The other is Atlantic Richfield.
Thus, whatever changes the status of nuclear fuels will have an important influence on the competitive position of coal and oil.
In the view of some, government involvement in the nuclear industry represents a dilution of private enterprise and unfair competition for coal and oil.
For others who fear a growing monopoly on fuels, the nuclear plants represent the only major fuel installation beyond the control of the present energy entrepreneurs.
President Nixon has announced that he intends to sell the government enrichment plants to private industry "at such time as various national interests will best be served . . ."
The possibility of selling the plants was suggested long before the Nixon administration took office. Four years ago the Atomic Industrial Forum, a nuclear trade association, appointed a committee to study the future of the plants.
The committee was chaired by Kenneth D. Nichols, an AEC general manager during President Eisenhower's first term who has worked in recent years for Gulf Oil, the Mellon family and other concerns.
The group concluded, in June 1968, "It is desirable and feasible for the AEC to transfer its enrichment plants promptly to the private sector."
One of the committee's seven members was not so sure. William M. Capron, then an economist at the Brookings Institution, attached a footnote to the committee's report, expressing doubt that "if these plants are sold, the private market thereby created would operate in a sufficiently competitive manner so as to adequately protect the public interest."
The efficiency of the three gaseous diffusion plans has never been questioned. They are among the largest industrial operations in the world, with a floor space of 640 acres and energy requirements of their own that in 1964 used 4 per cent of the Nation's electricity. If the plants are doing so well, why does the administration want to sell them?
"Sale of these plants could free federal resources for more pressing national uses," the President said last November. "In addition, $2 billion or more is expected to be needed over the next 10-15 years to expand plant capacity to meet increasing commercial demand."
If nuclear generating plants are built as expected, current enrichment capacity will be adequate only until 1978 or shortly thereafter, when new plants, major additions or new technology become mandatory.
Because new facilities take at least six years to build, new projects will have to be started soon to meet needs at the end of the decade. Some officials, such as Atomic Energy Commissioner James T. Ramey, say the new projects should have begun some time ago.
At this point private enterprise has shown little interest in buying the plants.
For some time, the plants have been operating at only 40 per cent of capacity or less, and even at this low level, they have built up a stockpile of enriched uranium that would last the nation's nuclear generators for some 18 months. A purchaser would have to tie up a huge investment for years before the plants would operate near full capacity.
Yet long before the plans approach capacity it will be necessary to start expanding them to meet future needs—a costly venture but a necessary one if the nation's power demands are to be met.
For the past three years, the AEC has been seeking funds for a $407 million "Cascade Improvement Program" that would increase enrichment capacity by about 25 per cent over a six-year period, at the same time, reduce the average cost of enrichment by about ten per cent.
Until this year, the project has been given low priority by the Bureau of the Budget, leading to charges from Sen. Albert Gore (D-Tenn.), a member of the joint committee, that the administration is trying to weaken the plants to help justify their sale.
"What they want to do is turn our nuclear fuel facilities into a shambles by refusing to make improvements," Gore said. "Then they'll say that private enterprise must be brought in to improve things."
A high Budget Bureau official said that the Bureau of the Budget found it "imprudent to build to capacity on estimates alone." He said, however, that the needs for nuclear power are such that a decision probably should be made on support of the Cascade program for the year beginning next July 1.
Even if implemented, the improvement program will add only enough capacity to meet needs for two more years, by current estimates. By 1980, a new $1 billion diffusion plant will be needed—and a decision on whether to build that plant must come by 1974 to insure operation by 1980.
Several members of the Joint Committee have been looking for alternative ways to cut back on the demands for enrichment in order to avoid making such overwhelming expenditures. Among the possibilities:
• Licensing a foreign nation or consortium to build and operate its own enrichment plant. Nearly half the work now done in the three U.S. plants is for foreign countries.
• Increasing the efficiency with which nuclear fuel is used. For some years the AEC has been doing research on a "fast breeder reactor" that might create great quantities of plutonium—a valuable nuclear fuel not yet feasible for electricity —while burning U-235.
• Developing a new "centrifuge process" for enriching uranium that would end total reliance on the gaseous diffusion plants. The centrifuge would entail much smaller capital costs than the diffusion process.
While the huge size of the three diffusion plants limits potential buyers to the very richest corporations, the centrifuge might be purchased and operated by a number of smaller companies. But it, like the fast breeder reactor, is still far from commercial feasibility.
A bipartisan alliance of legislators, many of them members of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, fears that if the plants are sold, only the giant oil companies—fortified by such financial advantages as the depletion allowance and import quotas—will have the resources to buy them.
Committee member George L. Aiken, a Vermont Republican, believes that the proposed sale of the plants is a political favor to the petroleum industry.
"The President probably feels indebted to those who helped elect him," Aiken told The Washington Post.
The economic stakes for consumers are huge. Testifying last year before the Joint Committee, Philip Sporn, retired president of the American Electric Power Co., the nation's largest utility holding company, estimated that private ownership of the plants would cause an increase of as much as 50 per cent in the total cost of nuclear fuel.
The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association said that by the 1980s, when nuclear fuel may account for more than one-third of generated electricity, such an increase would cost the American public $1 billion a year in higher electric bills, and perhaps more, if the fossil fuels raise their prices to take advantage of the reduced competition from nuclear fuel.
Sen. Aiken said that sale of the plants would be "the most advanced step toward private control of the Nation that has ever occurred.
"When you control energy—and oil interests now control coal and are on their way to controlling nuclear fuel—then you control the Nation," Aiken said. "I see this as a very serious threat to political democracy."
Today there are several sources of energy, although their control is quickly consolidating. Some power plants are even designed to switch from coal to oil or natural gas depending on which bids lower on fuel contracts. But many utility companies fear that in the near future, when they shop around for fuel they will find only one store.
Twenty years from now nuclear power—today only an infant in electrical generation—will be a powerful force, providing more than half of all American electricity and therefore creating the competitive yardstick by which other fuels will be sold.
Decisions made in Congress and the White House in the next few years will determine whether it will be a vigorous competitor or a silent partner to the present fuels.
John only wanted mining men to live like free men and to draw an honest wage.
He wrestled with a world which wouldn't give
Them justice in a dark and sorry age.
He wanted miners' children to be born with men of medicine to lend them aid
He wanted broken men of hope forlorn
To share a little of the wealth they made.
John's dreams came true because he wouldn't quit
His erstwhile enemies give him acclaim.
Here is a man of vision, soul and grit. . .
And reverence is used to speak his name.
Blair Mountain is a memory at last,
The slaughter down on Cabin Creek grows dim;
The serfdom and the bitterness are past,
The miner's way of life is far from grim.
There was a time two miners couldn't halt To say good morning on a dingy street. . . They lost their jobs for such a rotten "fault" And little children got no food to eat.
They say time heals all things. . .and maybe so. . . But we had time and Lewis. . .and our God. . . So thugs and guns and evil had to go. . . And freedom walks again on mountain sod.
—By Roy Lee Harmon
Poet Laureate of West Virginia (From the book "Unto The Hills") PRESIDENTS
JOHN McBRIDE 1892-1894
M. D. RATCHFORD 1897-1898
JOHN MITCHELL 1898-1907
JOHN P. WHITE 1911-1917
FRANK J. HAYES ' 1917-1919
JOHN L LEWIS 1930-1960
THOMAS KENNEDY 1960-1963
Names in Hell in Harlan
Alford Newell G.
Arnett T.A. "Tick"
Blair John Henry
Breck Daniel Boone
Cawood Dr. William P.
Cloud Daniel Boone
Daniels Dolly Hudson
Hall William Milton
Hooper Victor H.
Howard Burt O.
Jenkins George M.
Jones D.B. " Baby"
Lawson " Uncle" Bob
Lewis Dr. P.O.
Lewis Henry M.
Michael Mrs. G.I.
Moses Rev. B.H.
Musick Marshall A.
Roper Victor H.
Smith Daniel Boone
Vogel Rev. Carl
Watson Chester C.
Wooten Hamp C.