250 U.S.

519
40 S.Ct. 1
63 L.Ed. 1123

CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RY. CO.

v.
WRIGHT, Comptroller General of State of Georgia.
No. 30.
Argued Jan. 21, 1919.

Reversed with Costs

Rehearing Granted as to Certain Specified Points and Denied as to All
OthersOrder of April 21, 1919.
Reargued Oct. 13 and 14, 1919.
Decided Oct. 27, 1919.
Messrs. T. M. Cunningham, Jr., and A. R. Lawton, both of Savannah, Ga.,
for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Warren Grice, of Macon, Ga., for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 520-523 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.

In this case it was decided at the last term that the plaintiff in error, the railway
company, was exempt from liability to taxation as lessee of certain roads, 248
U. S. 525, 39 Sup. Ct. 181, 63 L. Ed. 401, as it had been decided a few terms
earlier that it was exempt from taxation upon the fee of the same roads. Wright
v. Central of Georgia R. Co., 236 U. S. 674, 35 Sup. Ct. 471, 59 L. Ed. 781. A
rehearing was granted on the question whether the exemption thus adjudged to
exist extends to portions of the plaintiff in error's road let to it by the
Southwestern Railroad and the Muscogee Railroad, which were assumed to be
embraced in the decision but were not specially discussed. The consideration of
the court was directed especially to the charter of the Augusta and Waynesboro

Rail Road granted in 1838 and having features characteristic of the conception
of railroads then entertained. 236 U. S. 678, 679, 35 Sup. Ct. 471, 59 L. Ed.
781. It is argued that the charters of the other lessors just named, granted at a
later date, even when limiting the corporation's liability to taxation in similar
words, should be construed in a different way.
2

The charters of the Southwestern and the Muscogee Railroads were not granted
until 1845, and while like the earlier ones they provided that the said railway
and its appurtenances and all property therewith connected, or the capital stock
of the said Rail Road Company, should not be subject to be taxed higher than
one-half of one per cent. upon its annual net income, they did not contain the
provisions that showed the Legislature in 1838 to contemplate indifferently a
revenue derived from using, from sharing, or from letting the special privileges
grantedprovisions that were of weight in the decision of the Court.

But we are satisfied that between 1838 and 1845 there had been no such change
in the policy of Georgia as to require the same words to be given a different
meaning at the later date from that which we have decided that they had at the
former. Circumstances had not changed when express power to let was given in
1852. The Muscogee was merged in the Southwestern under an act of 1856, but
the exemption remained superior to legislative change. Southwestern R. R. Co.
v. Georgia, 92 U. S. 676, 23 L. Ed. 762. As remarked by Chief Justice Waite in
a like suit between the same parties, the language of the exempting clause is
somewhat unusual, and means the railroad specified in the charter and none
other. Southwestern R. R. Co. v. Georgia, 116 U. S. 231, 6 Sup. Ct. 375, 29 L.
Ed. 626. But conversely it means that that road shall be exempt while owned by
this corporation whether used or demised.

We see nothing in the later statutes or Constitutions that attempts to substitute a

new contract or to impair the obligation of the one originally made. Different
opinions were entertained on the main question which this rehearing does not
reopen; but taking that as settled we cannot believe that any real distinction can
be made between the charter of the Augusta and Waynesboro and those of the
Southwestern and Muscogee roads.

The decree of last term must stand and that of the state Court must be reversed.

Decree reversed.

Mr. Justice McKENNA, Mr. Justice PITNEY, Mr. Justice BRANDEIS and
Mr. Justice CLARKE dissent.