Again, while some commissions may grow sluggish, others may be inclined to become arrogant and bureaucratic towards their masters—the people. There should be some means whereby commissions may be called before the legislature in the same manner in which members of the English cabinet are subjected to questions or interpellation in the British parliament.
Sir Courtenay Ilbert, in his book "Parliament; its History, Constitution and Practice," 1911, p. 113, says of this device:—
"Asking questions in the house is one of the easiest methods by which a member can notify to his constituents the attention which he devotes to public affairs and to their special interests. For this and other reasons, the right to ask questions is specially liable to abuse, and its exercise needs careful supervision by the Speaker and those acting under this authority. But there is no more valuable safeguard against maladministration, no more effective method of bringing the searchlight of criticism to bear on the action or inaction of the executive government and its subordinates. A minister has to be constantly asking himself, not merely whether his proceedings and the proceedings of those for whom he is responsible are legally or technically defensible, but what kind of answer he can give if questioned about them in the house, and how that answer will be received."
A proceeding of this kind would be a protection to both the commission and the public. The writer has often heard some legislator questioning the wisdom of commission administration because of derogatory state-
