266 FEDEEAIi EEPOBTEE. �Case, and the decisions ît cites and approves, clearly estab- lishes the doctrine that I contend for, and the last decision of the supreme court relieves me from any attempt to reeon- cile these conflicting decisions of the state courts. ���LoUTSVTT.TiE & NaSHVILLB EaILEOAD Co. ». GaINES, �ComptroUer, etc. (Circuit Court, M. D. Tennesiee. , 1880.) �L Statutort Construction— Exemption prom Taxation.— The char- ters of the earlier railroad companies iucorporated by the state of Tennessee contained exemptions from taxation ; but in later charters the legislature, to save repetition, instead of enumerating ail the pow- ers and Immunities intended to be granted, was content to refer to Bome earlier charter, and give to the new company " aU the righta, powers, and privileges" of the old. It is clear that the legislature Intended to confer these " rights, powers, and privileges " as fuUy as if speciflcally repeated in the new charter ; and such was the recognized construction of 3uch charters by ail the departments of the state government for more than 20 years. �2. Same — Samb — "PEiviLEaB. "— Where one railroad company is incor- porated wilh the " rights, powers, and privileges" of a pre-existing company, the new company acquires an exemption from taxation guarantied to the former. The Word "privilege" includes in its ordinary definition an exemption or immunity from taxation. �Cases cited — State v. Seita, 4 Zabrisliie, 555-556; Humphrey v. Pegues, 16 Wall. 244 ; Morgan v. Louisiana, 93 U. S. 217-223 ; BaUroad Com- panies V. Gaines, 97 U. S. 697, 711-712. �8. Constitution AL Law — Exemption from Taxation. — The legislature of a sj;ate raay contraot in a corporate charter for exemption of the corporate property from taxation, unless there be some constitutional prohibition. No such prohibition is contained in the Tennessee con- stitution of 1834. �Cases cilaà—Tomlinson v. Branch, 15 Wall. 460; K. & O. R. Co. v. Eicks, 1 Legal Rep. 343. �4. Statutort Construction — When Fbdbrai, Courts wili. PoLiiOw Btatb Courts. — Ordinarily, the federal courts foUow the ruling of the state courts in their interpretation of the constitutions and statutes of their respective states ; but where property has been acquired and investments made under statutory contracts, generally recognized and believed to be constitutional, in the absence of adjudications declar- ing them invalid, the federal courts are not concluded by the con- ����
