Arizona republican., 1906-01-21

they may increase or diminish the val uation of property in any county" In the Arizona statute the word prop
 erty' appears where the words "real estate appear in the Colorado statutes; and the word aggregate which ap
 pears in the Colorado statute, does not appear in the Arizona statute. While, by reason of this difference the mean ing of the Arizona statute does not necessarily differ from that of the Col orado statute with reference to the power of the territorial board of equal. ization to increase the sum of the val.
 uation of the several counties as fixed by the county officers, there is never theless, a very material difference in the meaning of these statutes in other respects. In view of the difference, we do not feel constrained to follow the interpretation given to the Colorado statute, even conceding, by force of the identity of large portions of the other
 Arlzona and Colorado statutes to which reference is made, and by reason of the general similarity of phraseology of the two paragra phs set forth above
 that the laws of Colorado were before the legislature of Arizona when the Arizona statutes in question were en-
 acted, and supplied a considerable DOT ton thereof. Furthermore careful examination of the case of Bell VS. Lothrop, supra, discloses that the lam
 guage of the statute in question was not construed. The controlling factor in the conclusion reached in that case was provision of the constitution Ot Colorado. While a board of eqrafiza.
 tion is limited to the exercise of those powers only which are clearly confer red upon it by law, and while it would a lrn 1iffnr-av1oa fY, 1afa oiY,ea. tion of the extent of such powers whether they are conferred by statute or by constitution, yet, on the other hand, statutes can not confer powet
 upon public officers if that power iA restricted by constitutional provision. Therefore, the statutes of Colorado could not confer powers upon the state board of equalization which by a reasonable construction and appiica- tion of the constitution of Colorado that board could not exercise.
 The supreme court of Colorado could not construe the constitution and sta-
 tutes together so as to arrive at a req | sonable construction of the law, but were under necessity first to interpret
 the constitution, and then to hold the statutes to be limited by the constitu- ton, no matter how much broader in their scope the statutes would be if not | so limited. In the interpretation of the
 Arizona statutes, there are no consti- | tutional limitations to be taken into | consideration. We are not only at lib- erty to. but must, interpret all of the Arizona statutes bearing upon the power of the board of equalization in
 such wise as to give effect to the evil
 The supreme court of Colorado could
 not give effect to the evident meaning
 of the legislature, if the legislature
 meant to confer more power upon the state board of equalization than was
 authorized by the state constitution.
 The Colorado constitution provided l ''The duty Of the state board of equal i ization shall be to adjust and equalize | the valuation of real and personal property among the several counties of | the state. The duty of the board Of equalization shall be to ad-
 just and equalize the valuation i of real and personal property
 within the respective counties" These | provisions of the Colorado constitution
 have not been adopted into the sta | tutes of Arizona, and, moreover, if so
 adopted, would not control or limit the
 interpretation of other statutes of Ari-
 Zona, but all the statutes would be in- | terpreted in such wise as to give eff | feet to the intention of the legislature
 if that could be determined. That the
 supreme court of Colorado interpreted
 constitutional provisions, and that the
 statutes were limited by this interpre- i tation, is manifest from the opinion of
 that court The court say: Section
 3s General Laws, page 75D provides
 that the county commissioners of each
 county shall constitute a board of