Mr. OWARD. Nothing extraordinary in principle, certainly, Mr. President. I believe that in all the States final process from the county courts runs into any part of the State, and may be executed there by the sheriff of the proper county. I time this is so in the State of NewYork, though do not know how that may be. Igut the object of the aemxaeentlryment is to remove a decided inconvenience which exists under the laws as they stand at present on thostatate book. For instance, I commence a suit in the eastern district of Michigan, and obtain my judgment. The defendant against whom the recovery is bad, at the time I take out my execution is not in the district, and has no property there, but is in the western district, on y a few miles from the place where I obtain my judgment. Under the law as it now stands, in order to make my judgment effectual, it is necessar for me to take out a certified copy of the whole record and commence a new suit against him in the western district, obtain another judgment there, and in the mean time run the risk of the defendant running 06 into Illinois or Wisconsin, and escaping me a 2nd time. hore are instances where this thinghas been practiced reeatedly to the great inconvenience and injury of suitors. The object of this amendment is to enable the propermarshal of an district in the U.S. where the defendant may be or where his property may be that is liable to be seized and taken into execution, to serve an execution and return it into the proper court and now, sir, I ask, what rational objection can there be to this proceeding? Wh should a plaintiff who recovers judgment in teState of NewYork against a defendant whose property is in Louismna, be under the necessity of employin" counsel and relitigating the questions in the district of Louisiana in order to obtain the fruits of his originaljudmentthere; simply doubling the expense, oubling the trouble to which he is put in order to realize his debt, and all the time increasing the hazard of his debt? Another thing: in chancery proceedings where a party has been properly served with original process in the district where the suit is commenced, if he passes out of that distric the is not subject to be served by the orders of the court in that chancery suit, and he cannot be held amenable for any contempt of the orders of the court. This is another cause of incon venience which is a very serious one as we all know who have practiced law in the courts of the U.S. The adoption of this amendment will remedy all these difficulties and enable the plaintiffwho has obtained ajudgment to execute it in any part of the U.S., and enable a party who has taken out an interlocutory order against a defendant who does not happen to be in the district where the suit is commenced to serve it upon him and hold him amenable in the same manner as if he were in the original district.