“his voice has been disallowed after a division.”[17]
Then, again, our own eminent countryman, Cushing, who was quoted so frequently the other day, in his elaborate book on the Law and Practice of Legislative Assemblies, expresses himself as follows:—
“Cases are frequent in which votes received have been disallowed.”[18]
Again he says:—
“Votes have also been disallowed after the numbers have been declared, on the ground that the members voting were interested in the question; and, in reference to this proceeding, there is no time limited within which it must take place.”[19]
Thus, Sir, it is apparent that Parliamentary Law is completely in harmony with Natural Law. Indeed, if it were not, it would be our duty to correct it, that it might be made in harmony.
And now, after this statement of the law, which I believe completely applicable to the present case, I am brought to consider the remedy. I said at the outset that there were two modes: one was by disallowing the vote on motion to that effect, and the other by amending the journal. But first let me call attention to the practice in disallowing a vote on motion. I have already read from Dwarris, where the vote was disallowed, and I will read it again:—
“Where a member appeared to be ‘somewhat’ concerned in interest, his voice has been disallowed after a division.”
Mr. Trumbull. Was that at the same or a subsequent session?