Arizona republican., 1906-01-21
SUPREME COURT DIVIDED
Continued From Page i.

to the effect that under these statutes the state board of equalization of Colo rado had no power to increase the sum of all the valuations of the. several countless as fixed by the assessors and board of equalization of the several counties, but that this sum must be taken as the aggregate valuation of all the property in the state. and is con- elusive and final as against the said board of equalization. If this conten- tion is well founded, this demurrer must be overruled; for under such circum- stances it will be presumed that the legislature of Arizona adopted the statute of Colorado with the interpre- tatfon given to it in that state.
 Henrietta Mining Company vs. Gard ner. 173 U. g.. 123; Goldman vs. Sotelo. 6S Pac., 55S.
 It appears that paragraphs 3S77 and 3S79 of the Revised Statutes of 1901 (which are a re-enactment of para graphs 2655 and 2656 of the Revised Statutes of 1SsO are in large portion, il not in all material points, identical, re spectively, with paragraphs 2279 and 22S1 of the General Laws of Colorado of 1877. Paragraph 3SSO of the Revised Statutes of 1901 Ca re-enactment of paragraph 265S of the Revised Statutes of 1SSU is the particular paragraph which we must interpret, and is as fol- lows:
 "3SSO. (Sec. 5O.). The said board shall ascertain whether the valuation of property in each county bears a fair relation or proportion to the valuation in all other counties in the terrftorv and on such examination they may in crease or diminish the valuation ot property in any county, as mucn as in their judgment may be necessary to produce just relation between all the valuations of property in the territory; but in no instance shall they. reduce the aggregate valuation as returned bv the boards of supervisors of the several counties. And said board shall at the same time fix the rate of taxes fo1 territorial purposes which is to be levied and collected in each county
 Paragraph 22S2 of the General Laws of Colorado of 1877, from which it is contended that we adopted the para graph just set out, is as follows:
 22S2. Sec. 43. Said board shall as- certain whether the valuation Of real estate in each county bears a fair re- latlon or proportion to the valuation in all other counties of the state, and on such examination they may increase or diminish thesaggregate valuation of real estate in any county, as much as in their Judgment may be necessary to produce a just relation between all the valuations of real estate in the state. but in no instance shall they reduce the aggregate valuation of all the counties below the aggregate valuation as re- turned by the clerks of the several counties''
 The material differences in phrase olosy of the two paragraphs we have indicated by italics.
 While the rule as to the adoption with an adopted statute of a prior in- depreciation is as set forth above "oi course a change of phraseology which necessitates a change of construction will be deemed as intended to make a change in the law" Mcdonald ya Hovey. 11O U. S.. 619. This latter doc. Urine is pertinently applied in the cases Of Stutsman County vs. Wallace. 14: U. s.. 293: Swofford, etc. Co. vs. Mills S6 Fed, 556; Kirman vs. Powning, 61 Pac.. 109O.
 It is to be noted that the Colorado statute provides: Said board shall as- certain whether the valuation of req estate in each county bears fair re- lation,' etc. and that they may in crease or diminish the aggregate valu. ation of real estate in any county while the Arizona statute provides Said board shall ascertain whether the valuation of property in each county bears fair relation," etc, and that