Interview with Thomas M. Foglietta, Esq.

June 24, 1980

The first question is how did your father come to be a Republican leader in and what role did he play in that regard? Well, I would think that he became a leader in Philadelphia because at that time when my family first came to this country the Republican pa±y was the party in power. My grandmother and grandfather came here as teenagers in the 1870's or early 1880's and they were married here in Philadelphia and they always used to tell me that they got married in Independence Hall because City Hall was not completed yet and — again, in those days if you were Catholic you could not have only a religious ceremony, you had to have a religious ceremony and a civil ceremony. So they had to go to Independence Hall to be married. And I think that what evolved was the community leader was the person who became involved in politics and in those days there wasn't really a Democratic party to speak of, so my dad went on to become not only the leader of his family, because he was the oldest of five children when his father was killed in a bicycle accident in about 1901. He then had to leave school and go to work. He worked in those days in Center City because as you know, although we lived in South Philadelphia and he lived in South Philadelphia — the family lived on Climber Street, which is the first street below Fitzvjater — that ,is the first street of South Philadelphia, where Center City ends. And the first street of the beginning of the Italo-American community in South Philadelphia is Fitzwater street and that is the street that we are talking about. So his employment then was in Center City.

He started working as a newsboy at a newsstand in the Bourse Building at 5th between Market and Chestnut. And he knew those buildings inside out. He started working when he was about 12 years old. I guess the influence of the men that he met in those days in the Stock Exchange and that was the center of business and professional activity in Philadelphia. There's nothing west of that — 5th and:.Market was the hub. And he became very familiar wiih the offices and the buildings aid all the people there and I guess that was the inspiration that he had to get involved in politics. And he then became a leader of his family, of his neighborhood, and his community. And I think that is how he got started in the Republican party in politics.

(WMP: He never thought of any other party?)

No. He was approached many times as you well know. In 1951 when he had the fall-out with the Republican leadership Dick Dilworth approached him and Dick Dilworth wanted him to become a Democrat and to run as a Democrat for Council. He would not do it. Before that, Jack Kelly, Sr., approached him in the 1930's. This was even prior to Barrett's rise in politics. In the 1930's I remember Jack Kelly, Sr., coming to my home on two or three occasions trying to talk my Dad into becoming the Democratic leader of south Philadelphia. And he didn't want to do it even then. He remained a Republican all his life. (WMP: So you still are a Republican?)

I still am a registered Republican, although I supported Bill Green in last year's election.

Second question — tell us a little about the South Philadelphia neighborhood in those days. I don't remember it very well, but from what I remember it is pretty much like it is today. It Is a substantial basically middle-class economic area in which the family is the crucial nucleus of everything. Everything revolves around the family. This is true of the Italian sections of South Philadelphia, in the Jewish, Irish, Polish, and the Black sections of South Philadelphia. The family is the focal point around which JLs then built the community and all of South Philadelphia. And it is still that way today. I think the people are more affluent today than they were 25 or 30 years ago. The sons and daughters of the fathers who then worked in tailor shops and who worked as artisans are now for the most part doctors and lawyers and accountants. But other than that I think basically the communities are pretty much the same.

(WMP: Do you think it is going to stay thht way?) I think it is because now not only are the families that have been there staying there but new people are coming back in the neighborhood. Young people who are just getting married are now coming back in the neighborhood and establish 3.

their homes. A perfect example is my nephew. My nephew, who is a lawyer now and who is about 29 or 30 years of age,., got married two or three years ago and purchased the home of my grandmother and grandfather that they purchased on Cliburn Street when they first came to this country from Italy. And remodeled it and is now living in that house. So you have that kind of an influx of young people coming back to a neighborhood. I think that the reason for it is a new look on life — the idea of the suburbs and the outlying areas is no longer fashionable and it is now being in Center City where the crossroads of civilization is. It has always been. The political center of the city, the cultural center, the economic center, and the social center is Center City. Next question — did your father urge you to run for City Council in 1955? Well, it was a mutual agreement rather than anybody urging. He had been in City Council until 1951 when he was betrayed by the leaders of the Republican party in the city of Philadelphia, namely, William F. Meade and Morton Whitkin. Remember those characters? And they forced him off the ticket by using the good offices of a good man, Daniel Poling, who was their candidate for mayor in 1951. And he went along for the good of the city of Philadelphia with what Dr. Poling requested but it was a conspiracy by Whitkin and Meade just to get him out of politics. He was pretty well knocked out of the box in 1951. And the two of us sort of bided our time between 1951 to 1955 and when '55 rolled around I made the attempt to run for office on behalf of my Dad and the rest of my family and was successful at it. (BF: What sort of support did you get from the Republicans?)

I was supported then by one faction of the Republican party which was by Austin Meehan. But\Iywas*ropp6sedrby the Whitkins and the Meades'and all the rest of the Republican party in Philadelphia.

(BF: How were you able to win then?)

I did get support from Aus Meehan and he was kind of powerful by 1955, but then we also had a tremendous amount of effort on behalf of a young campaign team. I had been involved in sports and had coached teams and managed teams and I got some young people working in the campaign and I had just finished my schooling and I had lots of people I had known in school and I formulated a very energetic and active campaign. And we were able to outwork the rest of the candidates. Plus we were dark horses, so to speak. We were not expected to have any chance whatsoever of winning. We just sort of parlayed the overconfidence of the other candidates to our advantage. Albert M. Greenfield bet someone $500 to $1 that I would lose the election and he lost the bet.

Fourth question — did you find that being the youngest person ever elected to City Council a handicap or an advantage I think it was a combination of the two. It was an advantage in that I was young and active in so many important things and getting a good start and it also gave me the tremendous advantage of meeting people — not only meeting, but working wi-th on a day-to-day basis — people like Dick Dilworth and Joe Clark — not Joe Clark so much because he had run for the Senate by then. But Dick Dilworth and many people who were on-.-'his-'team, including you, Walter, and Jim Finnegan and Bill Green, Sr., and Jim Clark, and Aus Meehan. But basically in the organization of the Democratic party and the government that Dick Dilworth had put together. He had some very competent people that I got to know at a young age and I sort of formulated and implanted in my mind ideas for the future of Philadelphia. Getting to know Harry Batten, for instance, and I worked with Mr. Batten almost on a daily basis on the development of Society Hill. I was very close to him. I was young enough to see those things and watch them come into effect and actually become realities. People now talk about Queen Village as something new, for instance, and I remember in 1958 and 1959 walking the streets of Queen Village with Harry Batten and having him point out the historically valuable houses in Queen Village and I remember him telling me that there were more architecturally valuable houses in Queen Village than there were in Society Hill, by far. So all these were good things and advantageous things I was able to do. And themDick Dilworth brought into his cabinet outstanding people that I had the privilege of meeting. And City Councilman Victor Moore — I had great respect for him. He was a fine person and knew so much about city government and because I was young he had no fear of teaching me and sitting and explaining many things to me. And it was a good background. I couldn't have had a better learning process. The disadvantages were that you were young and everybody would say don't worry, your time will come. Sit back and wait. Don't be overanxious and things will happen. And you always were too young. You always had plenty of time. And this as I see it was a big disadvantage. But weighing the advantages with the disadvantages I would not have had it any other way. It was a fantastic experience. 5.

(WMP: Did you take positions in the cabinets of any of these mayors?)

No. I always stayed in City Council.

Question five — what are your most vivid recollections of your experiences in City Council? It's too numerous to mention. After all, I served for 19 years in City Council. I remember I guess the various debates that I had on the floor of Coymcil with Jim Tate, who came down from the President's dias to debate me. Many debates with Paul D'Ortona. I remember Paul D'Ortona calling the police and having me evicted one time — bodily carried me out of City Council. We had some good debates there. And then George Schwartz came along and I debated George and I have a tremendous amouht of respect for George Schwartz for his knowledge of city government. It is fantastic. He really knows what is happening in this city. And it was a real challenge for me to debate him. And I did well wiihhim and quite a few occasions I beat him and a couple of times he beat me. We used to enjoy the give and take of the debate.

And then when George became president of City Council I remember one time debating Izzy Beilis, who was not in the class of George Schwartz and doing so well against Izzy one time that George Schwartz had to interrupt the debate and came down on the floor and took Izzy's place. And that really made me feel good. But I think they are tie high points of my councilmanic career. Just the everyday working -in the government and I enjoyed every moment of it and the debates were really the high points. I really took pride in those.

Six. How much of an interest did the Republican organization take in what happened in City Council? There was interest. Not as much as I thought that there should be. The Republican organization left it pretty much to the Councilmen to do what they saw fit to do, except in rare instances on tax proposals and things of that nature where we would get together with the leaders of the party and discuss policy. But even in those cases there was always a good battle, usually between myself and the leaders of the party, on policy. I differed from them on many instances, in wanting to provide the needed funding for schools, for instance, which they opposed. But for the most part they didn't interfere 6.

too much on a day-to-day basis. Rather, with the policy issues when they called meetings of the councilmen and discussed the policies we should follow.

Seven — what was the ratio of Republicans to Democrats during the time you were in Council? Most of the time it was 15 Democrats to 2 Republicans — the absolute minimum that we were able to have as members of the minority party. A couple of times we had more. They elected Wilbur Hamilton the first term that I was there from the Germantown - Chestnut Hill area. Then during one term we had a councilman from South Philadelphia and on two occasions, for eight years, we had a councilman from the far northeast. But other than those fiour occasions that minority which was guaranteed by the charter, namely, two members of city council.

Did the: R-e public an members of City Council usually work together on various issues? Yes, we did because there were so few of us. It wasn't too difficult to convince one person. I got along very well with when she was the minority member of City Council and Thacher Longstreth and I worked closely together. We did work quite closely together. Next — what were your main interests in what came before Council while you were there? I'd say basically I was interested in all facets of city government. By the time I had served — was in my third term until the remainder of the time I was there I was a member of the Rules Committee, a member of the Finance Committee, a member of the appropriations committee, a member of the Law and Government Committee, and some others. As you well know, Walter, those four or five committees ran the government of the city of Philadelphia and I was a member of all those committees. . ✓ (WMP: Who were the leaders of those?) Victor Moore started out many years ago as chairman of the Finance Committee. George Schwartz then succeeded him. He was followed by Harry Janotti. And then on appropriations, Paul D'Ortona was on appropriations and Harry Norwich was on after that. I don't remember who succeeded Harry Norwich. Then Law and Government was another committee that was extremely important. But having worked on all those committees, they were the important committees of City Council and I really enjoyed, however, the budget process. The finances of the city really interested me while I was there. And that's 7.

why I was so anxious to work with the Finance Committee and the Appropriations Committee because basically they handled all the physical end of the operations of the city.

(WMP: Do you still do any work for the city government?)

None whatsoever. I'm in my law office now practicing on a full-time basis. I have been working on various projects that Mayor Green has asked me to work on — for instance, he asked me to chair the Census 'Committee in Philadelphia — Committee for a complete Count in 1980 — and I accepted that chairmanship and I worked at it for the last five months and I was very happy to find out just two weeks ago that we were selected as the city having the best census effort. We won first prize of all the large cities in the United States in the efforts put forth by the city in its census drive. So I did that for the mayor. Just the other day he asked me also to serve on the Century Four Celebration, which is the celebration of the 300th anniversary of the founding of the city of Philadelphia. So that's the kind of things I've been doing with the mayor's office. But nothing on a day-to-day basis. Nothing salaried. > Next — what was the basis of your support that enabled you to be elected to five terms in City Council? I can boast, I think, or am very proud, let's say, of the fact that it was a general support throughout the city. I have very strong support in the Italo-American community in South Philadelphia and Italo-American communities outside of Philadelphia. But I've also enjoyed tremendous support in Northeast Philadelphia, in near Northeast, and I also enjoyed a tremendous amount of support in North Philadelphia in the black areas, and West Philadelphia, Germantown, Chestnut Hill -- just generally throughout the city. In 1971, when Rizzo was the candidate and Rizzo made an announcement four days prior to the election asking all his friends to vote against one particular candidate, namely, Tom Foglietta. I led the Republican ticket by 40,000 votes and carried — I was number one in 58 of the 60 wards, which shows pretty good strength throughout the entire city. Eleven — would you describe the relationship between City Council and Mayors Dilworth, Tate, and Rizzo? I think all of tiem enjoyed a good relationship with the mayor's office — I mean each of them enjoyed a good relationship with City Council. I think that Dilworth did it with his popularity and his good ideas and his leadership ability where he would sell programs and announce programs and then have the Council join him. Tate did it because of his infinite knowledge of 8 .

the intricacies of city government, which is just uncanny. You could be walking down the street with Jim Tate and he would see three people digging holes in the street working for the city and he knew how much each of them made per year and how much their overtime pay was — ask him any detail and he knew it. And I think because of this strength and the fact that he had served as the president of that City Council for six or eight years prior to the ascendency of the Mayor's office made him quite strong. I think Mayor Rizzo had that same kind of attraction as he did generally with the public — certain members of City Council followed him implicitly and felt that he could do no wrong. Whatever he suggested they did. Ed Cantor, for instance, no matter what Rizzo suggested he was for, without question. There were various members of the Council who were like that. A guy named Frank O'Donnell from the Ifortheast. A few others I can't think of right now. Then there were others who were opposed to him and some voted against anything that Rizzo suggested. And then there were some in the middle who would try to analyze -- I would try to be one of those — what the proposition was and whether it was good or bad and leave the fact out that it was Rizzo's. But he had that core of strength in Council of those people who followed whatever he suggested.

(BF: Did you notice much of a change in the quality of the membership of City Council through those administrations? Did you see a difference in the character of the Council?) Yes. I think when Dilworth was in office it was a prestigious king of position. People would have served on that Council for nothing, for the honor of having served q.n it. With men like Victor Blank, and Victor Moore, and John Byrne, to name a few — Charles Findley, Wilbur Hamilton, myself, Virginia Knauer, even Uncle Louie Schwartz. I think the caliber of some of the councilmen certainly did go down through the years, although we had some people in the Council who were very very good. Even to the present day I think we have some excellent councilmen.

Twelve — this one I could write a book on — would you tell of pur attempts to gain the nomination for Mayor in 1967, 1971, and 1975? Well, 1967 was always my target date to run for Mayor. I realized that having been elected in 1955 at the age of 26 I was too young to make any moves for a while — I decided that I would stay in Council during the Dilworth administration and give Tate one term and then after one term of Tate I thought it would be an opportune time to run against Tate when he was running for reelection. And I guess I was right because Tate was probably at his weakest. The Republican party had its strongest opportunity in 1967. That was always my target date for running for mayor. And I was working toward that date with that one goal in mind. 9 .

And then in 1965 in the District Attorney's race, the Republican party at the urging of Senator Scott selected and Arlen Specter von the election as District Attorney in Philadelphia. Then he became a logical choice to be the candidate for mayor. I had been working twelve years to get that nomination and I believed that I could have won in 1967 but naturally Arlen was coming along very strong because he had won the city in 1965 and he was building up what looked like a victory in 1967 for the mayoralty. And I still wanted it and worked for it and then the leaders of the party got together and had meetings about it — they sent for me and talked to me about it and said you are still young, we are going to go with Arlen Specter, Arlen Specter will become the mayor, you will become president of City Council, and the next step for you is the mayor's office. In fact, Arlen would probably resign in 1970 to run for Governor and you will succeed Arlen as Mayor and then run for reelection in 1971. And the scenario didn't seem bad because Arlen at that time seemed to be a shoe-in for the mayoralty. If you remember, one editorial by the Inquirer said that in the Spring of 1967 the race was so lopsidedthat they should elect Arlen >Specter by acclimation and not waste the taxpayer's money by having an election. And so it was pretty well set that I was going to be President of City Council. I was still on my way to becoming Mayor of Philadelphia but I would have to take one extra step. And as you know, what happened then was Rizzo started to develop strength in the community as Police Commissioner. Tate appointed him Police Commissioner on primary election day in 1967 and what happened was that Arlen Specter started to lose ground toward the election. It still seemed that he was going to win. I remember going to Arlen and suggesting to him that he say that he was going to retain as Police Commissioner but he wouldn't do it — and not because he didn't want it — but only because he didn't think he needed it. He thought it was a sure winner. And I talked to Bill Meehan about it and Meehan felt the same way. He said we don't need that, we're going to win without committing ourselves to Frank Rizzo as Police Commissioner.

I didn't feel that way because toward the end of the election I started to go around and talked to people and they felt strongly about Rizzo being Police Commissioner. So what I did was the Friday night before the election in South Philadelphia I went to a rally — 5,000 people out in the street at Broad and Porter — and Governor Scranton was there and Senator Hugh Scott was there and many other people and they were trying to get some enthusiasm out of this crowd. 10.

This was the Friday before the election and the crowd was just quiet. They wouldn't react to anything that was said. I knew what they were waiting for and finally I got up and started to sppak and started giving them my regular election speech and I was getting no reaction whatsoever until I finally came out and said that when elected Arlen Specter will reappoint Frank Rizzo as Police Commissioner. I got a thunderous ovation. The people just went wild and they applauded for 15 minutes. It just broke up the entire rally. That was all they wanted to hear. And we had a victory wrapped up. And on Saturday Arlen Specter was campaigning on South Street and he stopped in at Kellum's Delicatessen for lunch and some news people walked over with a television camera and put it before him and asked him about the statement I had made. No, I'm sorry, they didn't even ask him about the statement I had made. One of his aides told him I had made this statement and he got up and said Foglietta doesn't speak for me and what he said last night was not correct. He said I will not commit myself to reappointing Frank Rizzo as Police Commissioner. And that statement cost him the election. And then two or three days later >he lost by 11,000 votes. And had he not made that statement on Saturday afternoon Arlen Specter would have been mayor in 1967 and I would have been President of City Council in '67 and you probably would not have heard of Rizzo as a mayor in Philadelphia. But they are things that happen. In 1971 I had the nomination. I think what Rizzo did was the same thing that Nixon did in selecting his own opponents. Again, the leaders of the party sat down and selected Tom Foglietta — this is a story that very few people know. I was actually selected as the candidate for mayor in 1971 * on a Friday afternoon. It was informal — Bill Meehan and some other leaders of the party decided that I should be the candidate because it was natural that Rizzo was going to be the opposing candidate and I would have strength where Rizzo didn't have — I had strength in the natural opposing forces to Rizzo. The black areas, and Center City, and the liberal areas, they would all be supporting me not only for my strength but against Rizzo. And then I would be able to have a lot of strength against Rizzo in the Italo-American communities. And ;\he would not have that solid strength that he had against Longstreth. This story has never been admitted by Bill Meehan or anybody else, but I have verified it. On a Friday, Bill Meehan decided among some other people that I should be the candidate and it was wrapped up for me. And it leaked out to some of the Rizzo people and three people who were Republicans in Rizzo clothes — were actually for Rizzo but were Republicans — went to Bill Meehan's home and convinced him that I should not be the candidate. 11.

That Thacher Longstreth would be the better candidate for the Republican party because he would offer a better alternative. Whatever reason they gave. That was late on Saturday night or even Sunday morning. Over the weekend. They met with Bill Meehan and they talked Meehan out of supporting me and instead supporting Thacher Longstreth. And these were three Italo-Americans who were allegedly Republicans but actually were supporting Frank Rizzo. And they went to Bill Meehan and changed Bill Meehan's mind. And that's how I didn't get the nomination in 1971. So I really felt as though I could have won in 1967 and didn't get it; I could have won in '71 and didn't get it. And then in 1975 it was a very simple matter. Again, what happened in 1975 was that all the polls taken showed that Frank Rizzo had between 42 and 44 percent of the vote wrapped up. Nobody was going to take that away from him. So there was 56 to 58 percent of the vote up for grabs. Which looked like we could win.

So I was given — I won the nomination in 1975. And again Rizzo's group got together — bankers and some financeers and businessmen and they reasoned pretty much the same that »we were reasoning. They said we have an opponent here, Tom Foglietta, who knows his way around. He knows government and has a good following. He is an Italo-American. He's a good campaigner. And we've got 42 to 44 percent of the vote wrapped up. He's got a potential of 56 to 58 percent of the vote. He has a commitment of about $300,000 — that was just on my own, aside from what the party would put up. They said now we stand a chance of losing this election. What can be done to prevent him from winning the election? There were ten men around the table having this discussion. Two of the men got up from the table and "left and decided the way to do it was to get a third candidate and put a third candidate into the race. They went and they sought Charlie Bowser and they put Charlie Bowser into the race and they financed Charlie Bowser. (BF: The Rizzo people financed Charlie Bowser?) Yes. No question about that. John Bunting was the person who did it. He was really basically for Rizzo. They succeeded. So Rizzo had the 42 to 44-. Now you take the scale from the extreme left, philosophically, all the way over to the extreme right, and you put Foglietta here and Rizzo here — I had from this end all the way over up to 50 and 8 points into his side and he had 42. And that's the way we were going to win the election. And then Bowser gets in the picture. Now we start to split up the 58 that We had. Bowser and I started to divide that up. He's over on the left of me. Now Bowser is coming in from this side and Rizzo is coming in from this side. And poor Tom Foglietta is in the center getting squeezed. Now what happened was that Bowser was 12.

just picking up on the left and Rizzo kept picking up on the right and I kept losing on both sides. I didn't know where to go in that election. I couldn't go to my left because I couldn't go to the black community — I couldn't out-appeal Bowser. I could not go to the right and out-Right Rizzo. So I just tried to be moderate and I tried to talk about the finances, which I did more than either one of them.

(BF: Did you have a hopeless feeling all through it?) Oh sure. I've been around for a long while. Now what happens — you say how did Rizzo wind up with more than 50% of the election. What happened was Rizzo's determination, once he knew he was going to win the election, because he had the opposition divided. Then his strategy was that he wanted to make sure that he got at least 51% of the vote so that nobody could say won only because he divided the opposition. So what strategy they used then was the weekend beforethe election they made some 40,000 phone calls to people who were solid Republicans and they said to those people, we know that Tom Foglietta is a good guy, a competent guy; however, Charlie Bowser is going to win this election if we divide the white vote. If we divide the white vote between Rizzo and Foglietta,Bowser is going to win this election. So even though we know Foglietta's a good guy and we like Foglietta, you had better go out an vote for Rizzo. And that's how Rizzo then pushed his 42 to 44 percent over the 50 percent mark. So that's what happened in 1975.

(BF: I think that answers question 13. What about 14?) I just want to make one comment on 13. Once Bowser got into the race and he was bound into the race I knew it was a hopeless cause because I can see through figures as well as anybody. For instance, prior to Bowser getting into the race I talked to about a thousand delegates of the teacher's union at a luncheon and got a ten-minute standing ovation. I had a thousand volunteers there. A thousand people were for me 100%. And I found this all over the city in groups that I spoke to. As seDnfas Bowser got into the race this all started to fall apart. And one of the most difficult things — here it was June when I final-ly realized what had happened, that Bowser was not going to get out of it. That Bunting was not going to let him get out of the race and he was going to stay in this thing because his goal really was 1979. So he had to stay in it for Bunting's sake. Bunting forced him to stay in. But one of the most difficult 13.

things in my lifd was that in June I realized what was happening — that Bowser was not going to get out. I knew then that was the Rizzo strategy. And I had a great decision to make. The decision was what to do about this election. My father who had been almost like a partner with me for many years — we worked together on politics. At that time he was quite old, he was 85 years of age, and he was in the hospital and he was a very very sick man and it was obvious that he was not going to last much longer and I didn't want to disappoint him — his son was finally running for mayor. This was something he wanted all his life. So I had that consideration. And my decision was do I quit, which some people would have said would have been a smart move. But I thought about two things. Number one, I thought about my father and then I also thought about the fact that it would have been almost an international story — that a candidate for mayor in the fourth largest city of the United States quits the race. They would not have given the reasons as I have given them. People would not have known the reasons. They would have just known that Tom Foglietta quit the race. And I didn't want that to happen for my sake or my Dad's sake. So I ♦ decided to stay in this thing. And the $300,00 0 that had been committed to me naturally just fell apart. Because those people realized pretty well that it was a hopeless cause. I knew that it was a hopeless cause and I don't want anybody to ever go through what I had to go through for those next four or five months — running in an election that you knew was hopeless, all your friends knew was hopeless, with no money' whatsoever, and just trying to get through it unscathed and keeping your head high to get through it as a person who could still maintain the respect of the people of Philadelphia. That was my only 'objective and I attained that because I think that the press and everybody else at the end of the thing said that I did a good job and I was able to get through it holding my head up high. And my Dad was happy I was able to do that and he passed on a few months later. So that was the end of that story. (BF: What about the support from the Republican leaders when you were running?) It was obvious. Again, Meehan personally helped as much as could help. He gave me some of his own money — I think $12,000. He personally tried to help. But for reasons I just indicated, people in the Republican party were for Rizzo. Many of them. There was a lot of support among Republicans for Rizzo because philosophically a lot of them agreed with Rizzo. Number one, a lot of them knew that my cause was pretty hopeless and I think the basic 14.

reason was that a lot of them were for Rizzo and let's face it, there were some of them who were just dishonest and took Rizzo's money.

Next — do I think that the Republican organization secretly wanted Rizzo to be reelected? Yes, I do. Philosophically, they were so closely attuned to him that I think that they really wanted him to be reelected.

Whenever Rizzo was in any election it was us versus them and that was his kind of a campaign. And I didn't want to engage in that kind of a campaign and he did and I didn't. So it was pretty much of a non-campaign, for that matter. But I think that the basic issue was the finances of the city of Philadelphia. And as you remember very well, I came out and said not only was there going to be a tremendous tax increase after the election, but there was going to be two tax increases. And Rizzo denied that and said there would not be. And I said well, let's ask the person who I really respected up until that pQintv I had lost respect for him totally since then. Lennox Moak. Because you remember Moak lied to the people of Philadelphia. He came out and said Rizzo was right. The®e**wa:ll not he.-a tax increase after this election. And he was just lying through his own teeth and deceiving the people of Philadelphia. For probably some benefits of his own, for pension rights or whatever he might want to get. I was totally shocked because he just lied. In fact, the person who is the present city Finance Director, Ed DeSeve, was at that time Len Moak's assistant and he resigned in protest to his boss lying to the people of Philadelphia. It was obvious because Rizzo said there would not be a tax increase all through the campaign while I was showing that there had to be a tax increase and that he was spending wildly and wasting the taxpayer's money. And the press pretty much went along with Rizzo. And what happened was, as you well know, within six months after his reelection he increased taxes twice -- the highest one-shot tax increase in the history of the city of Philadelphia. In question 17 yourask what made me think that Rizzo could be beat -- I gave that answer already. I also answered 18. Nineteen, do I see a future for the Republican party in Philadelphia? Very little future. The Republican party has got to a point where it is 15.

totally satisfied to take the remnents of election defeats and salvedge whatever there is — the bits and pieces that remain after an election defeat. Most of the people still involved in the Republican party are concerned about accepting these defeats as commonplace, year after year, looking only for something for themselves mostly judgeships. They will be a ward leader and they will remain in the Republican organization for 10, 15, 20 years and lose overwhelmingly every year and accept these defeats, hoping that some way, some day, by hook or by crook, Bill Meehan could get them into a robe on the bench, or some other position they might be looking for. And this is going to perpetuate itself. There is no way you can get around this because some of these guys kids are doing the same thing. The sons of the guys who have been hanging onto Bill Meehan are now still hanging onto Bill Meehan, watching the Republican party lose every election, again hoping for something for themselves in the future. With a few exceptions -- Charlie Dougherty in the Northeast, and where Meehan opposed him — the first Republican congressmen we've had in 25 years and Meehan opposed him. Now I can see where you might have some conflict with a person if you are the leader of the party, but you don't oppose the first victorious congressional candidate you've had in 25 years. This is ridiculous. The same way with a man up in your area, Joseph Rocks (?), who is probably the best state legislator we've had in 20 years that I can remember. He's fighting for all the good things for Philadelphia up in Harrisburg. He was elected chairman of the freshman delegation. A fine young man — articulate and intelligent. Does good things for Philadelphia. And again Meehan attempted to oppose him in his bid for reelection. So this is what is happening in the Republican. And except for those few exceptions, I don't see anything developing in the Republican party for any future victories. (BF: Does it all hinge on Meehan? Has he groomed someone to take his place? What happens when he's not the head anymore?) I think he'll be around for a while. He probably has somebody to follow in his footsteps, doing the same things he's been doing all these years. 16.

Do I have any further aspirations for running for public office? Walter, I must be very candid when I say that yes I've got in the back of my mind the possibility that someday I might run for office again or at least get involved in the processes of government. I'm here in my law office. I enjoy this very much. I'm good at it. I'm doing well with it. This year I will probably make $100,000 or close to it, which is a nice amount of money to be making, which pays probably about twice as much as you can get for any political office or appointive office , However, my first love is government, as you could believe and understand, and I do hope to get back into it someday. I don't want to rush headlong into windmills with propellers, but if an opportunity presents itself I will certainly consider it very very thoughtfully.