852 ADDRESSES AND STATE PAPERS

(Favorite Son Role)

Q. Does this indicate, Governor, that you have shifted your position
and now favor Nixon over Rockefeller?

A. No, I'm still very independent and at this point I am intending
to go as a Favorite Son to the convention. As I have indicated before,
this may change at any time in the future because we are in a very
rapidly developing political climate at the moment; but at the moment
I am uncommitted.

(Republican National Convention)

Q. Governor, do you think that the candidate will be selected on
the first ballot in Miami?

A. Most people seem to think that the Kennedy assassination has
put so much of a brake on active campaigning in both parties that
there is little likelihood that people will go to the convention in a
fully open situation. I don't know whether I entirely agree with that
conclusion or not, but I do think that certainly the enthusiasm for
the traditional American mix-it type of campaign has been greatly
diminished by this tragic occurrence — the death of Senator Kennedy,
one of the principal candidates.

(Goldstein Meeting and Revenue Picture)

Q. Governor, as a result of your talks with Mr. Goldstein and vice
versa, the Comptroller of the City of Baltimore seems to be under
the impression that there is a windfall coming to the City of a piggy-
back type. Can you comment on this?

A. Well, I think one of the main things that Mr. Goldstein and I
discussed, that may have been lost in the enthusiasm of our remarks
to each other, was that there is apparently a great substantial change
in the percentage of local share reflected in his report of May 27 when
contrasted with his report of February 18. Consistently up until the
May 27 report the local share is estimated at one-sixth — roughly
one-sixth. After that on May 27 the local share seems to be estimated
at well over one-quarter or a couple of points over one-quarter. Now
there is no explanation in the May 27th report why the amount going
to local governments should suddenly increase so radically, and when
you apply the figures — the estimates of the gross revenue, taking out
the increase in local share — you find you've just about got the amount
that we're short. So there is a suspicion at least that the reason we're
short is that the amount that has to be paid to local governments
was misestimated up until the May 27th report.