The opposition go further and charge that, even though efficient men may be elected to office, the commission plan makes impossible the fixing of responsibility.  They failed, however, to point out a single instance in commission-governed cities to prove their point and made no attempt to show how responsibility could be better fixed under the present system.  As a matter of fact, Honorable Judges, the fixing of individual responsibility, under the present system, is utterly impossible, as we have already shown, while it is the strongest virtue of the commission plan.  In matters of pure administration it is absolutely impossible for the commissioner to escape individual responsibility, for he has full charge of the administration of his own department.  In matters of legislation, where the majority vote of the commission may determine a policy affecting a certain commissioner, responsibility is not lost but is fixed upon those few who voted for such policy.

It has been contended that the commission form of government is unpopular and that this plan has been rejected in both Sioux City and Davenport.  That these cities rejected it is true.  But why?  Sioux City turned it down because the constitutionality of the plan had not, at that time, been determined.  Davenport refused to accept it because the grafting politicians and the political ring so dominated the city’s politics that they were able to defeat the new plan and retain the old, which was best suited to the furtherance of their own ends.

The gentlemen of the opposition have argued that the present inefficiency of city government is due to the interference of the state legislatures and contend that the ultimate solution of the difficulty lies in greater municipal home rule.  They are correct, Honorable Judges!  The state legislature has interfered.  But why?  Simply because the city council has proved itself inefficient.  New York City’s council was in full possession of its powers when the state legislature began to interfere.  Legislation by somebody was necessary.  The council failed, and now the negative say, give back to the city its powers and let the council try again.

According to the gentlemen themselves, the end to be achieved is less interference of state legislatures and more home rule.  It is obvious, however, that this can be accomplished only when the city itself can put forth a capable and efficient legislative body.  Honorable Judges, in our second speech we proved to you, that the commission provides a small but efficient legislative body, far superior to that of an isolated council.  If you want municipal home rule, establish a form of government which makes it possible.

Mr. Charles Briggs replied for the Negative: