guise of taxation. In this age of vast encroachments upon what had long been regarded as the dumain of constitutional right, it is well to uphold and enforce the guaranties of the fundamental law in the full vigor of their manifest spirit. It has been urged that this ruling will extensively affect and impede the collection of taxes throughout the state. The answer is that we cannot make laws and we dare not fritter away the sacred rights of the citizen because of an exigency. Legal principles tannot be put aside, constitutional rights must not be impaired because public officials have neglected to follow the law in those particulars affecting the substantial rights of the citizen. We dare not make a fissure in the dike, however small, to meet an exigency, however great, lest the opening in time widen to an enormous breach, and constitutional rights be overwhelmed, confounded and swept away. And here it is well to answer the argument that the rights of the public should not be at the mercy of the board of equalization. This argument, when legitimately extended would warrant the taking of property and life, without due process of law. It would uphold an assessment never made, a tax never levied, because itis in the power of the officers charged with the performance of these duties, wholly to neglect them. The truth is, that, in this sense, the public is constantly at the mercy of its servants in a multitude of cases. Protection to human life is in this sense at the mercy of courts, of jurors, and of prosecuting attorneys. Failure of duty on their part might encourage and enormously increase the number of homicides; but who would urge this as a legal reason why the accused should be condemned and executed without a trial. Omission of duty is not the equivalent of its full discharge where the citizen can point to the constitution as a guaranty that that duty shall be performed before his property shall be taken. But the people are not at the mercy of their servants. Experience hasshown that thesanction of the criminal law, the force of public opinion and the general disposition of men to obey the law and discharge their duties are sufficient protection against the evils of official dereliction of duty. How stands the question upon authority? The case of Mills v. Gleason, 11 Wis. 493, is cited. The opinion shows that it does not sustain the
