Talk:Ex parte Vallandigham

Ex Parte Metzger
Article says, "Ex parte Metzger was used as precedent" but the list of "United States Supreme Court cases" doesn't list such a case.


 * The decision in Vallandigham can be read in full here . The decision clearly mentions Metzger in the following:


 * In Ex parte Metzger, it was determined that a writ of certiorari could not be allowed to examine a commitment by a district judge, under the treaty between the United States and France, for the reason that the judge exercised a special authority, and that no provision had been made for the revision of his judgment. So does a court of military commission exercise a special authority. In the case before us, it was urged that the decision in Metzger's case had been made upon the ground that the proceeding of the district judge was not judicial in its character, but that the proceedings of the military commission were so; and further, it was said that the ruling in that case had been overruled by a majority of the judges in Raines' case. There is a misapprehension of the report of the latter case, and as to the judicial character of the proceedings of the military commission, we cite what was said by this court in the case of The United States v. Ferreira. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

other errors in article
No federal district court reviewed the merits of Vallandigham's case. On May 11 federal circuit court Judge Humphrey Leavitt simply declined to issue a writ of habeas corpus and specifically denied any judicial notice of the sentence or trial verdict by the military commission. The transcript of the court's review of the application for a writ is in the Official Records of the war of the rebellion, Series II, Vol. 5, 574-584; the transcript of Vallandigham's military trial is in the same volume, beginning on p. 634.

The quotation attributed to Vallandigham concerning "death, defeat, taxation, and sepulchres" is not from the speech incident to his arrest. He said that in a speech to the House of Representatives in January 1863, available in the online version of the Congressional Globe and reprinted in Vallandigham's collection of speeches available from Google books. There is no record of the speech that got him arrested; the only account is from the officers who reported him to Burnside, and Vallandigham did not challenge the accuracy of their recollections at his trial. He simply argued that his statements were taken out of context and that all of his assertions were provable and therefore not seditious. But the burden of his argument was that as a civilian he was not subject to arrest and trial before a military tribunal where the civilian courts were still operating.

Salmon P Chase was not Chief Justice of the Supreme Court that ruled on Vallandigham's writ of certiorari. Chase joined the Court in December 1864, 10 months after the Court ruled on Vallandigham. Indeed, Lincoln consulted with Secretary of the Treasury Chase on what to do about Vallandigham's arrest; Chase and Secretary of War Stanton considered (and Stanton wrote but Lincoln ignored) an order specifically denying Vallandigham the right of habeas corpus. Chase knew that the judge handling the application for the writ, a fellow Ohioan, would certainly deny the writ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pknupfer (talk • contribs) 16:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)