That's one of the usenet discussions over the Lieber document that came to light after Hummel and Adams et al wrote about the account. There are several pieces of information within it that are also questionable at best. Among them:
But there is no record, as far as I can tell, that Lincoln ever consulted Lamon on a decision of high political importance, much less that he entrusted Lamon with such a decision.
This is about as false as they get. Lamon was extremely close to Lincoln as a friend, advisor, and personal bodyguard. They were friends back in Illinois and used to try cases together before Lincoln was President. After Lamon and Lincoln arrived in D.C. Lincoln appointed him federal marshall and also continuously employed him as a political agent. In fact, this is the reason that Lamon wasn't at Ford's Theater to stop the assassination. A few days earlier Lincoln had sent him on a political mission to Richmond to serve as his agent in the reorganization of the Virginia government now that the war was over. Lamon did that sort of stuff for Lincoln all the time so it is not at all unusual that Lincoln would have used him for the Taney warrant.
Nor does the author's question about the Lamon paper's date discredit it. As I previously noted, Lamon spent a great deal of time in the later years of his life writing down and recording his personal recollections of Lincoln in preparation for a book on that subject. He died with before completion of the project in the 1890's and his daughter accumulated the finished portions of it into a book that was published around 1900. Lamon's notes and recollections on Lincoln encompass a period from roughly 1866 to Lamon's death, and only a small portion of them made it into the biography edited by his daughter (subsequent editions of it, for example, have included appendixes with new passages). It is highly likely if not certain that the habeas corpus document was one such item composed by Lamon.
Nor is it the least bit unusual that he would not have quoted the arrest warrant itself - arrest warrants are entirely boring legalistic documents that normally use a standard form and have very little literary significance in themselves. Contrast that with a court ruling, which is a formal legal argument and is unique onto itself. Lamon was a lawyer and knew this distinction.
In short, the entirity of the usenet piece's argument rests upon conjecture and speculation regarding the person of Ward Hill Lamon. Unfortunately the author of that piece knows extremely little about the life, person, or activities of Ward Hill Lamon during and after the Lincoln administration. As we now learn the very same aspects he questions were entirely consistent with what Lamon is known to have been doing in the years that followed the assassination, viz.: assembling passages with his own recollections of Lincoln for an eventual biography.
I agree. I was referring to Jabez L.M. Curry.
You must not know your history then. Jabez L.M. Curry was one of the preeminant university scholars in 19th century America. To cite him as a scholarly source on tariff policy is perfectly valid. He was also a congressman from Alabama and the University of Virginia's school of education is named after him. His likeness is in the United States Capitol's statuary hall: http://www.aoc.gov/cc/art/nsh/curry.htm
Thanks for the education. I haven't been down to UVa since October! And I never would have made the connection.
ML/NJ