“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?
MR. SUMNER. It does not appear whether it was at a subsequent session,
but it simply appears that it was after the division. The Senator
understands that the division in the British Parliament corresponds
with what we call the yeas and nays. They “divide,” as it is
called,--the yeas and the nays being counted by tellers as they pass.
The American authority is in harmony with the English already quoted. I
read again from Cushing.
“The disallowance of votes usually takes place, when, after the
declaration of the numbers by the Speaker, it is discovered
that certain members who voted were not present when the
question was put, or _were so interested in the question_”--