Arizona republican., 1906-01-21

equalization for the correction and com pletion of the assessment rolls, with power for the purpose of equal izing the same, to increase, diminish or otherwise to alter and correct any assessment or valuation. It constitutes them a quasi court 70 hear any complaints of the tax payer with full power to ad- just and correct the assessment roll
 thus adding statutory duties to their constitutional duties to adjust and eaualize. The assessor is
 made an integral part of the revenue system which not only specifics and defines his duties, but assigns to other officers a number of equally well defined and separate du- ties. The assessor shall list and value; the board of commissioners shall equalize, adjust, and hear complaints; the state board of equalization shall adjust and equal ize valuations Looking, then, to the provisions of the constitution and the statute, we are clearly of the opinion that the power to fix and de- termine the valuation of taxable prop cray is lodged by them in the assessor and boards of the county commission CTS of the several counties in the state; and when they have performed this duty, the sum of the valuations of the several counties so by them found. must be taken as the aggregate valua. tion of all the property in the state and is conclusive and final as against the state board of equalization. The state board may for the purpose of equalizing or adjusting, increase the aggregate valuation of the county and decrease the aggregate valuation ot another. but they have no power to increase the sum of all the valuations of the several counties of the state.
 People vs. Lothrop, Colorado, 42S.
 These provisions of the constitution of Colorado were adopted into the consti- tuition of Montana. In interpreting them, the supreme court of Montana, in state ex rel. Wallace vs. State Board. 46 Pac.. 266, after quoting from the decision of the supreme court ot Colorado above cited, say: "These comments by the Colorado court upon the constitutional restrictions placed upon the powers of the state board of equalization of that state, apply to the enactments today in force. of our con stitution." The same court. State vs Fortune, 50 Pac., 1OS7. say:
 The learned attorney general citeA sections 3690, 3SOO-3S02, of the Political Code, as conferring upon the state board of equalization authority to do that which it attempted to accomplish; {; but statutes cannot clothe the state board with power denied to it by the fundamental law" Brantly, chief jus
 tice, concurring specially, said: "I concur solely on the ground of stare decisis. If the question involved were a new one in this state, I should be in nf diCrauro orf7i "a given to the section of the constitution by the supreme court of Colorado in People vs. Lothrop, 3 Colorado, 42S and followed by this court in State ex-rel Wallace vs. State Board, as ply wrong."
 Our legislature is not limited by constitutional restrictions upon the power which it may give to the terri i torial board of equalization. Further | more, we have not adopted as a statute the provision of the constitution of Colorado making it the duty of the county board of equalization to ad- just and equalize the valuation of real and personal property within the re- spective counties" The supreme court of Colorado seem to have interpreted
 that language as limiting the power which may be conferred upon the state board. Whether the interpretation is i correct, or incorrect, it is an interpre- | tation of language not in our statutes | Therefore, in no aspect of that case
 are we concluded by the decision there | reached.
 With respect to the particular point
 now under consideration, our statutes
 do not seem difficult of interpretation ] The various county assessors must, in 1 the first instance, assess the property