The times-news. [volume] (Hendersonville, N.C.) 1927-current, 1934-03-15
WILL FIGHT GOVERNMENTS POWER
DEVELOPMENTS


The latest crack at the federal govern
ment's power development program is
taken by John L. Lewis, president of the
United Mine Workers of America, who
says that coal operators and coal miners
propose to fight government subsidized
hydro-electric projects and will strenuous
" oppose further development in this field.
Mr.. Lewis, of course, is speaking in the
interest of citizens engaged in the coal
mining business, but there is truth in his
statements. Here are some of them:
1.-The outstanding fact in connection with hydro
electric development is that the development CT
hydroeleetric plants to generate power to dlspace
coal is no longer considered upon basis oil cost
The Tennessee Valley Authority was not author-
lied by Congress because electric power wouu
displace coal upon any basis. of cost. The Boulder
Dam was not projected upon that premise Inc
LOup River project in Nebraska Is not being pro-
NOTED because the power thus generated VIII be
cheaper for industry than power produced by coal
The Loup River project is being promoted 3y
a group of about $50 individuals out IN Nebraska
who have hired man to represent them IN get-
ting the government money to finance the PROJECT
and from all reports he is to get either ten per
cent or FIVE per cent of the gross amount that the
government allocateS to the Loup River project
in developing the Loup River project is to get his
commission and the $50 people who are promoting
the project in Nebraska are willing to pay MN
commission if the government Will give them Ihe
money with which to pay his commission VeEy
simple proposition and by the way, the Loup RIVER
project was surveyed repeatedly by private power
enterprise and rejected being an inefficient site
for the development of electric power on the basis
of cost of other projects and with coal.
My distinguished FRIEND Mr.. Francis IN MS
70 stated
to be true that power can be generated from coal
more cheaply per kilOwatt hour than 1t can DC
done through the construction OF hydro-eIecIflc
plants That is an established scientific TACT Yet
for whatever reason certain branches of the gov
eminent are promoting the construction and de-
velopment of vast hydro-electric projects.
There is pending in the Senate at the present
time bill by Senator Norris OF NEBRASKA TO cIc-
are a-:ssour Valley Authority which CONVEYS
r. that Authority to construct hNdrO.
t available sites on the Missouri
r. its tributaries covering ten great
statas n and about the only RESTRICTION
/ that tb. t build a dam some point on
those rivers where the water doesn't run uphill
and the bill proposes that the government OF the
United States shall write blank check to hnahce
those undertakings when surveys are made All!
approval is given those projects by the missouri
Valley Authority under that Act.
.sCertainly such a policy is destructive OF the
interests of the coal industry. Certainly II VIII
.rastrict the productive capacity of the industry
0srtainlv II will increase unemployment. Certainly
il is not sound policy from our viewpoint to de-
strov permanent jobs in America and substitute
for them only an equal number of temporary JOBS
and that is about what the hydro-electrlc power
propositions amount to in their final analysis
In addition to the foregoing, Mr.. Lewis
of course could have made other state
ments embarrassing to the government and
propounded other questions which no one
connected with the government will at
tempt to answer. For example, in view OF
the fact that the private power companies
of the nation are in position to manufac-
ture and distribute around fifty per cent.
more power than the country can use,
what kind of business proposition is 1t
for the federal government to build more
plants and increase the surplus?
Would it not be better to adopt the gov
ernment's' much-ballyhooed economic rule
that SURPRISES can always be plowed un-
der? What about blowing under few
electric plants?