that this is just another crooked UMWA election. Impounding the ballots could assure the voters that this time they had a chance to vote in a fair and honest election. Secondly, the Department could make it clear at the time the ballots were impounded that they were expressing no opinion as to the validity of the charges of vote fraud, that it was taking this action only because such serious charges had been made.

These are not some wild charges by opposition candidates without any substantiation, and I fail to understand how you could assert that my recitation of the event as related to me by credible and reliable pgrgons could be considered at variance "with the facts as you know them." Undoubtedly,

in accord with its usual practice, the Department has accepted at face value the transparent excuses of the incumbents. In this case the word of men under indictment by a Federal Grand Jury for violations of LMRDA is given greater weight than that of the opposition who caught these men with their hands in the ballot box. All we know of the opposition's defense is Budzanoski's statement reported in the New York Times that the paste was being used to seal manila envelopes where balloting material had been placed for safekeeping. Even the inventive Mr. Budzanoski, however, has apparently been unable to explain why the ballot box was open, why ballot-filled envelopes dated several days previous ware out of the box in the possession of the officers, and why Mr. Seddon was utilizing a razor blade. Perhaps in a rare moment of thrift the District 5 officers had decided to make excelsior from some of the marked ballots?

Finally, I am curious about your statement that "LSMA is now providing technical advice at the request of the union." What technical advice has been given, what assistance has been rendered the union and which individuals requested such help? If such request for assistance was made by the District incumbents--as I suspect it was--I am at a loss to understand your participation at a time when you have consistently denied in toto our repeated requests for governmental action. Even more surprising is that after the horrible events of 1969 the Department has not changed one iota its policy of dealing ex parte and in secret with the incumbents. Whether or not there is corruption or bias in the Department's actions, the procedures it uses dealing

solely with the incumbents and handling such matters without keeping the opposition informed of what is going on, are ure wise and lend credence to the charge that the LMRDA section of the Department exists solely to satisfy its clients, the "ins" of organized labor. Surely such procedures are not tolerated elsewhere in any fairly administered Department. Moreover, by actively assisting the incumbents at this time, are you not lending an air of legitimacy to this election in face of strong evidence that it is being unlawfully conducted? Why can the Department try to preserve the validity of an election on the incumbents' terms when they request such help, but refuse similar requests by the opposition?

If there is a challenge to this election and the Department is forced to seek a new court-ordered election, you will have once again forced the working miners of this country to bear a burden which you should have borne.

This will acknowledge your letter of December 8, 1970.

As you know, the Department has taken possession of the absentee
ballots and records in the District 5, United Mine Workers election,
and is in the process of examining them to determine whether illegal
tampering occurred as was originally charged by Mr. Joseph Daniels,
candidate for Secretary-Treasurer, District 5, UMWA on the Miners
for Democracy slate. I am advised that the incumbent Secretary-
Treasurer and each of the Tellers, with the exception of Mr. Daniels,
were agreeable to surrendering the ballots to this Department's
representatives without service of a subpoena, but that as a result
of his refusal, a subpoena was served.

I wish to point out to you that the Department's action in taking
custody of these election records at this time was in no manner in
conflict with our prior refusals to intervene in the election process,
since all balloting was at this time completed, and our action could
not, therefore, influence the voters. Apparently you misunderstood
my letter of December 5, 1970. My first reason for not complying with
your request to impound the ballots in District 5 was that "the
balloting in the election has not been and will not be completed
until December 8, 1970." I did not, as you infer, make any reference
as to whether balloting had already begun. As we have stated many
times, it is the Department's policy, mandated by law, not to interfere
with union elections prior to the completion of balloting.

The statement in my letter of December 5, 1970 that "Not only is your
submission less than compelling, it is at variance with the facts as
we know them" is based upon your recitation of the facts in your
December 3, 1970 letter to the Secretary of Labor, and the oral statement

OF LABOR

OF AMERICA

Mr. Joseph A. Yablonski

Page 2

made to Area Director William B. Kane on November 30, 1970 by
Mr. Joseph Daniels, one of the observers of the facts alleged as a
basis for your charges.

(1) You stated that "Two days ago the incumbents were caught redhanded in the act of tampering with the absentee ballots." In his statement to Mr. Kane, Mr. Daniels made no mention that he saw anyone actually tampering with the absentee ballots. Instead, he said that he knocked on the closed door of John Seddon's office. Mr. Seddon came to the door, "appearing nervous." Daniels pushed open the door and saw another staff member sitting at a table with about 100 to 200 ballots and envelopes.

(2) You stated that "When Daniels and the others opened the door they discovered Seddon and other district officials surrounded by absentee ballots and unmarked ballots." In his interview with Mr. Kane, Mr. Daniels mentioned only one person, a staff official, in the office with Mr. Seddon. Mr. Daniels also stated that because he was not wearing his glasses he was unable to determine whether the ballots were marked or unmarked.

(3) You stated that "the absentee ballot box was wide open." Mr. Daniels told Mr. Kane that there were two metal boxes in the room which he (Mr. Daniels) proceeded to open. Neither of them was locked. empty and the other contained between 50 and 100 envelopes.

One was

(4) You stated that "John Popp, a district official, ran out of the room with a bag in his hands obviously containing additional ballots." Mr. Daniels told Mr. Kane that when Mr. Seddon opened the door in response to his knock, John Popp, a staff member, dashed from the office with a loaded brief case. Daniels said he had no knowledge of the contents of the brief case.

You state that you are at a loss to understand our participation, in rendering technical assistance to District 5, at a time when we have consistently "denied in toto" your repeated requests for governmental action. We have, in times past, spelled out for you in detail our reasons for denying each request you have made for governmental intervention in the union's election prior to completion of the balloting. Since you choose to ignore those explanations, there is no need to repeat them here. However, the representatives of the Secretary of Labor have always, in all cases, stood ready to give technical assistance by way of answering questions and giving advice. They have done so, and will so continue, in this instance, both with respect to the incumbent officers of District 5 and members of the Miners for Democracy slate. In this instance, advice was given to the union to invite the

Mr. Joseph A. Yablonski

Page 3

candidates for the Miners for Democracy slate to have observers at the receipt and handing of absentee ballots. I understand that the union followed this advice by issuing such invitation for those candidates.

We have consistently considered that the role of this Department in the administration of Title IV of the Act was to remain strictly impartial, and we shall continue to conduct ourselves in that manner.