of city government the world over is division of functions.  It is the principle that the commission form attempts to annihilate.  But we have pointed out the real causes of municipal evils and have shown they are to be remedied without tampering with the fundamental principles which time and experience have shown to be correct in every instance of successful city organization.  The Affirmative say:  change the fundamental principle; all changes in form and other remedies are insufficient.  The Negative say:  retain the principle of distinct legislative and administrative bodies, but observe a proper correlation between them which is done in countless instances as we have shown.  We would remedy bad social and economic conditions, introduce better business methods, and, most important of all, give the city greater freedom in powers of local self-government.

Mr. Clyde Robbins, the second speaker of the Affirmative, said: 

It should be understood at the outset that the Affirmative desire all the local self-government for American cities that the Negative can induce the state legislatures to give them.  But just what is home rule for cities?  It is simply granting additional functions to the city by the state legislature.  The only possible way home rule can affect the question under discussion is a consideration of which form of government is best suited to perform additional functions granted by the government.  We maintain that the commission form can do this better because, first, it furnishes superior legislation, and second, it furnishes superior administration.

The gentleman blandly assumes that the commission form is fundamentally wrong, because it fails to provide a separate legislative body as do the governments of the state and nation.  An isolated legislative body is desirable for state and national governments.  Is that a reason for applying it to city government?  Here, social, economic, and political conditions are entirely different from those of either state or nation.  The city is not a sovereign body.  Its powers are exclusively those delegated to it by the state legislature.  They are confined wholly to matters of local concern.  Furthermore, we do not deny the legislative functions of the city, nor does the plan we advocate contemplate the destruction of the city’s legislative body.  It simply means that in place of the present notoriously inefficient, isolated council, we establish a commission council composed of the heads of the various administrative departments.  The question at issue is not whether we shall have a city council, either system provides for that; but whether a commission council, or an isolated council will furnish better ordinances.  We are contending that the commission council must furnish superior measures, because in the making of city ordinances there are at least three great essentials for which this commission council alone makes adequate provision.

    First the legislative and administrative work of the city must be
    unalterably connected;