[ns]: And just when did he say this?
Taney said this to the crowd in the courthouse on May 28, 1861, upon taking his seat at the bench. I provided the reference for this above. I'll repost it and highlight it in blue this time in case you can't see red font. From the Baltimore Sun, May 29, 1861:
Chief Justice Taney, upon taking his seat on the bench, said that he desired to state that his associate, Judge Giles, of the Circuit Court, was present with him yesterday by his invitation, because he desired to avail himself of his counsel and advice in so important a case. The writ of habeas corpus was ordered by him as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, consequently Judge Giles could not act with him in the case.
[rb]: I think because he didn't want to give any excuse to the Lincoln Administration not to deliver the prisoner who was being held in Baltimore.
[ns]: You think.
Read the decision, non-seq. Here's Chief Justice Taney in the decision:
The petition was presented to me, at Washington, under the impression that I would order the prisoner to be brought before me there, but as he was confined in Fort McHenry, in the city of Baltimore, which is in my circuit, I resolved to hear it in the latter city, as obedience to the writ, under such circumstances, would not withdraw General Cadwalader, who had him in charge, from the limits of his military command.
Well here are three links, one, two, three, to three sources calling it a circuit court case. There are books like "Lincoln and Chief Justice Taney" by James F. Simon that say it was a circuit court case. Here is a site, link, that makes it clear it was a circuit court case. The only people who seem to think otherwise are you and 4CJ.
There seem to be a few others ...
From Lincoln's Constitution, p. 17, by Daniel Farber:
Technically he did not issue it in his capacity as a judge 'on circuit' but rather as an 'in chambers' opinion of the chief justice.
From Carl Brent Swisher, Roger B. Taney, The MacMillan Company, published October 1935, reprint June 1936, pp. 551.
An audience of some two thousand people assembled on the fol¬lowing day to witness the outcome of the struggle between the Chief Justice and the military authorities. Leaving the Campbell home in the company of his grandson, Taney remarked that he might be imprisoned in Fort McHenry before night, but he was going to court to do his duty. As he took his place he announced that he acted alone rather than with Judge Giles because of the fact that he was sitting not as a member of the circuit court, but as Chief Justice of the United States. One reason for the distinction, undoubtedly, was the belief that it would lend added weight to the decision.
Michael Stokes Paulsen, The Merryman Power and the Dilemma of Autonomous Executive Branch Interpretation, points out that some scholars erroneously treat Merryman as a circuit court case.
Someone, GOPcapitalist or nolu chan, long ago posted a photo of the front page of the decision where it is labeled as an "at Chambers" decision. I quoted the photo above above. I searched a few thousand archived posts tonight but couldn't find the photo. Perhaps it was in a deleted thread. However, I did find reference to the front page as follows [emphasis mine, source is The Constitutional Puzzle of Habeas Corpus by Edward A Hartnett, a Seton Hall law professor, Link]. I extract a few key sentences below that indicate the original printed label and Taney's own handwritten version:
Although the report of the decision in Federal Cases ... includes a caption denominating the case as one decided by the Circuit Court for the District of Maryland in its April 1861 term, the reproduction of the original opinion is captioned, "Before the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, at Chambers." ... See Carl B. Swisher, The Oliver Wendell Holmes Devise History of the Supreme Court of the United States: The Taney Period 1836–64, at 848 & n.25 (1974) ( referring to a draft in Chief Justice Taney's longhand and noting that Chief Justice Taney labeled his opinion "Before the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States at Chambers" ) ...
And it may well have been. But the legal proceedings were not done before the Supreme Court. let's look at the history provided in this Link. The Chief Justice passes the following order: "'In the matter of the petition of John Merryman, for a writ of habeas corpus: Ordered, this 26th day of May, A. D. 1861, that the writ of habeas corpus issue in this case, as prayed, and that the same be directed to General George Cadwalader, and be issued in the usual form, by Thomas Spicer, clerk of the circuit court of the United States in and for the district of Maryland, and that the said writ of habeas corpus be returnable at eleven o'clock, on Monday, the 27th of May 1861, at the circuit court room, in the Masonic Hall, in the city of Baltimore, before me, chief justice of the supreme court of United States. R. B. Taney." And in response, the Chief Justice's own clerk issues the following: "'District of Maryland, to wit: The United States of America, to General George Cadwalader, Greeting: You are hereby commanded to be and appear before the Honorable Roger B. Taney, chief justice of the supreme court of the United States, at the United States courtroom, in the Masonic Hall, in the city of Baltimore, on Monday, the 27th day of May 1861, at eleven o'clock in the morning, and that you have with you the body of John Merryman, of Baltimore county, and now in your custody, and that you certify and make known the day and cause of the caption and detention of the said John Merryman, and that you then and there, do, submit to, and receive whatsoever the said chief justice shall determine upon concerning you on this behalf, according to law, and have you then and there this writ. Witness, the Honorable R. B. Taney, chief justice of our supreme court, &c. Thomas Spicer, Clerk. Issued 26th May 1861."
Now if this were a matter before the Supreme Court then shouldn't it be identified as such instead of being issued in the District court? The Chief Justice ordered the writ, his Supreme Court clerk issued it, but it eminates from the District of Maryland and is heard in the district court. It was not a Supreme Court ruling or a Supreme Court decision. Constitutionally the Supreme Court had appellate jurisdiction and not original jurisdiction. Taney can't bypass the circuit court just because he wants to. His actions in issuing the writ may well have been in his role as a Supreme Court justice, they have that power. But his ruling was performed in his role as a circuit court judge.
That being the case, can it really be considered a true court decision? From USSC case Carper v. Fitzgerald in 1887: "The order of the judge that the papers be filed, and his order recorded in the circuit court, does not make his decision as judge a decision of the court." The judge in question in that sentence, by the way, was a circuit court judge and not a USSC justice, so there was no question at all to which court he belonged, but the court makes a clear distinction between a decision issued by him in a habeas case and a decision of the court.