AH. UNIOH TEIiEaBAPH 00. V. BELL TELEFHONI 00. 699 �Treat, J. To have the juriadictional question tested, the order to show cause issued in this case ; and now, on the mo- tion to discharge said order, the court is to determine whether, by force of the act of 1875, the powers not theretofore exist- ing as to an original proceeding for mandamus have been granted. AU the decisions prior to that act, it is conceded, denied such jurisdiction in the United States circuit courts ; but it is contended that the act of 1875 not only enlarged the jurisdiction as to parties, but also as to the subject-matter and forms or modes of proceeding. The language invoked isthat said courts "shall bave original cognizance, etc., of ail Buits of a civil nature at common la^ or in eçLuity." �There still remain on the statute hook sections 629 and 716, which are substantially a reproduction of sections 11 and 14 of the judiciary act, (1789,) unless their restrictions are repealed by the act of 1875. The latter enlarged the juris- diction as to parties, but used the same îanguage as îo the nature of the suits which had prevailed since 1789, viz.: "AU suits of a civil nature, at common law or in equity," under which the United States supreme court has uniformly held that, taken in connection with section 14 of the original act — now 716 of the Eevised Statutes — the power claimed did not exist. It is held, therefore, that the United States circuit courts bave not, under the statutes of 1875, any other juris- diction in mandamus proceedings than theretofore existed. The same reasons that caused congress originally to withhold the authority exist more forcibly to-day, growing out of the large multiplication of offices and corporations. �The motion to discharge tha order is granted. �If the parties wish to further test the question a demurrer to the jurisdiction may be intorposad and sustained. ��� �
