universal overturning of all traditions and theories of government in the hope of finding a short-cut road to municipal success.  Give the city a proper sphere of local autonomy.  Co-ordinate the departments of government, so as to establish responsibility and secure harmonious action.  Simplify present city organization without destroying the two branches of government.  Introduce new and improving methods, such as non-partisan primaries, civil service, uniform municipal accounting, and publicity of proceedings.  Remedy bad social and economic conditions.  Arouse civic interest.  Do this, and there is no necessity for such a radical and revolutionary change as the universal adoption of a commission form.

The new plan means, not alone a change in the form of government, but a positive overturning of the working principle of successful city organization the world over.  Its experience has been in the small towns for a short time, under unusual conditions, amid aroused public sentiment.  Even here it has shown fatal weaknesses which the gentlemen have not satisfactorily explained.  It was abandoned by the only large city that ever tried it; and cast aside as an abject failure by Sacramento, Cal., after fifteen years of operation.  In the face of these facts, the gentlemen would have all American cities turn to this form as the final goal of municipal success; a form which attempts to revive the old board system of selecting administrative heads by popular vote; which, in addition, centers the whole government of a city in a small executive cabinet, without review or oversight; a form which, in the words of Professor Fairlie, of the University of Michigan, “is in direct opposition to the advancing idea of municipal home rule.”

Mr. Luxford closed the debate for the Affirmative, and said: 

The case for the Negative is now closed.  It has been indefinite from start to finish.  They acknowledge the success of the commission form but refuse to accept it as the proper form toward which American cities should work.  They have none to offer except a form which is completely unknown in American cities and successful alone in Europe under totally dissimilar conditions.  We have shown that every vital move for city improvement today is toward a commission form, both in practice and theory.  The gentlemen have sought to overthrow the argument for the commission form, and yet suggest no possible American substitute.

But the position is not only indefinite, but it is inconsistent.  At one time they say, “the commission form is working well in small cities.”  In another they declare that the commission form ignores the only principles which are at the basis of successful city government the world over.  Putting these statements together we must conclude that the gentlemen who made the second statement failed to hear the gentlemen who made the first.  If they grant that the commission