New Orleans daily crescent., 1866-04-06

was done by the act of Congress of March 3, 1S4s,
the one now sought to be repealed And in the
reestablishment of the courts in this district in
order to avoid the evil resulting from the abolish
inc the court, which had manifested itself SO
clearly in compelling defendants to appear in
courts at great distance from their domicils this
last act in reestablishug the court in this district,
required it to be held at the five most prominent
points in the district, instead of the one point at
which it had been formerly held. This was to
bring the court as near the domicl Of the defend
ant as possible and mitigate the evil found to re-
suit from the suits instituted in New Orleans.
As soon as the United States District Court was
re.estabished in this district, most of the suits
that would have been instituted by foreign credi-
tors against citizens of this district IN New W
leans, had this district not been re estaollshed
instituted in the State courts In the parish OF
the domicil of the defendants, as the New orleans
attorneys did dot practice in the Western District,
and the suits had to be placed in the hands of at
torneys in this district it was more convenient for
them to bring the suits in the State courts, and
there was full confidence in those courts.
Before the war only such suits were instituted in
the United States court for the Western District,
as the State courts did not have jurisdiction of,
for the reason that all parties had full confidence
in the Estate courts. and litigation was sooner
brought to close in them than in the United
States courts. Such civil cases as the State courts
did not have jurisdiction of were brought in the
United States court, which confined the civil
docket in those courts in this district to small
number of cases. z-. w..
Since the war there has been no organization of
this court, butt will coubtless be organized
and foreign creditors will have the option either to
sue in that court or the State court.
The existence of the United States Court in this
district absolutely necessary, to prosecute Grim
mails, who violate the penal laws of the United
States as those criminals can only be prosecuted
in the United States Court, and the idea that the
court sitting only in New Orleans for the whole
State, can obtain witnesses to prosecute for all
the crimes throughout the State, is absurd. II
witnesses in criminal cases were required to at
tend court at New Orleans, an average distance OF
full1ive hundred miles from their domicils, it is
plain to see that the cost to the government in the
prosecution of offenders from this part of the
State would be immense, amounting to tens OF
thousands of dollars annually more than if the
courts were in the Western Districts. In fact
criminals could not be prosecuted but to a very
limited extent and at an enormous cost, in the
event of the abolition of this court. The govern
ment will not, certainly, place itself in the position
to encourage crime or to prosecute it, under suci
disadvantages and heavy cost.
Wherefore your memoralists pray that the peti
ton of Miles Taylor, Christian Roselius and til,
thirty-four members Of the New Orleans bar b.
rejected.
H. NJ. Bry, John Ray, Robert Ray, R. W. Rich
ardson, j. G. Rchsrdson,J. l.. Hunscker, R. G
Cobb, John 7. Ludeling, Joseph F. Mcclure, n
l.. Hardy, Robert J. Caldwell, W. H. Gayle, S. L
Slack and thirty others. dag.