[nolu chan]

[Non-Sequitur] The comments you quoted are the result of speculation on what might have happened had Davis been tried before the 14th Amendment had passed.

I paraphrased rather than quoted.

Your interpretation is incompatible with what I said. I indicated that Chase held the stated opinion that by the passage of 14th Amendment, Federal punishment for Davis and others had been legislated, and he/they could not be punished again for the same offenses. This indicates that the 5th Amendment objection was viewing the 14th Amendment as having raised a double-jeopardy issue.

I now quote from the original source material below:

http://jeffersondavis.rice.edu/faqs.cfm

In an unusual twist, Chase made known to Davis' attorneys, a distinguished group of northern and southern litigators, his opinion that the third section of the 14th Amendment nullified the indictment against Davis. His contention was that by stripping the right to vote from high Confederate officials, a punishment for treasonable activities had been legislated, so Davis could not be punished again for the same crime.

* * *

Chase's anger with Underwood was obvious, and he stated for the record why he believed the 14th Amendment exempted Davis from further prosecution.

http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/B/spchase/chase05.htm

When Chase finally sat at the Davis trial in November 1868 he approved Davis' lawyer's argument that the 14th Amendment that had recently gone into effect applied to Davis.

[Non-Sequitur]

Which is what I've been saying all along. Chief Justice Chase believed that ratification of the 14th Amendment made any trial and conviction of Davis unconstitutional on 5th Amendment grounds. Was I not clear?