“No member shall vote on any question in the event of which he is immediately and particularly interested.”[13] This is but an expression in parliamentary language of what I have announced as the rule of universal jurisprudence. But, Sir, this rule was borrowed from the rules of the British House of Commons, one of which is,-- “If anything shall come in question touching the _return or election_ of any member, he is to withdraw during the time the matter is in debate.”[14] I quote from May’s Parliamentary Law. From another work of authority, Dwarris on Statutes, I now read:-- “No member of the House may be present in the House when a bill or any other business concerning himself is debating; while the bill is but reading or opening, he may.”[15] Then, after citing two different cases, the learned writer proceeds:-- “This rule was always attended to in questions relative to the seat of a member on the hearing of controverted elections, and has been strictly observed in cases of very great moment.”[16] Again the same writer says:-- “Where a member appeared to be ‘somewhat’ concerned in interest,”-- That is the phrase, only “somewhat concerned,”-- “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?