His power to consult with these interested individuals was implicit in and incidental to his duties to the State. Cf. Gold Seal Chinchillas, Inc. v. State, 69 Wn.2d 828, 833, 420 P.2d 698 (1966); State ex rel. Van Orsdel v. Yelle, 15 Wn.2d 320, 323, 130 P.2d 889 (1942). More important, he had apparent authority to do what he did, and where there is apparent authority even specific prohibition by the principal will not prevent agency from being established.
As a result of the changes made by the Budget and Accounting Act, the decisions of this court cited by relators, in support of their contention last above-stated, are not applicable to the facts before us. See State ex rel. Van Orsdel v. Yelle, 15 Wn.2d 320, 130 P.2d 889 (1942), which was based on RCW 43.09.070 (Laws of 1890, p. 640), which has been repealed by implication by RCW 43.88. We have considered the several arguments advanced by relators in support of their application for a writ of mandamus to compel the payment of the expenses of the Legislative Council during the current biennium, and have come to the conclusion that the writ must be denied.
The state auditor has, through the years, refused to issue vouchers where he questioned the propriety of the use being made of public funds. Sometimes we have held that he was mistaken and directed the issuance of certain vouchers: State ex rel. Oregon State Highway Comm. v. Yelle (1955), 47 Wn.2d 804, 289 P.2d 1027; State ex rel. State Employees' Retirement Board v. Yelle (1948), 31 Wn.2d 87, 195 P.2d 646, 201 P.2d 172; State ex rel. Van Orsdel v. Yelle, (1942), 15 Wn.2d 320, 130 P.2d 889; State ex rel. Washington Toll Bridge Authority v. Yelle (1938), 195 Wn. 636, 82 P.2d 120; and, sometimes, we have held that he was right and that the expenditure could not lawfully be made: State ex rel. Washington State Building Financing Authority v. Yelle (1955), 47 Wn.2d 705, 289 P.2d 355; State ex rel. Eastvold v. Yelle (1955), 46 Wn.2d 166, 279 P.2d 645; State ex rel. Davis v. Clausen (1931), 160 Wn. 618, 295 P. 751; State ex rel. Banker v. Clausen (1927), 142 Wn. 450, 253 P. 805. I concede, of course, that the legislature can, if it so desires, abolish the office of state auditor; but until it does, or until the constitutional statement of his duties is amended, the auditor should remain the "auditor of public accounts."
Opposing respondent's reasoning and argument, the relator contends that the funds of the retirement system are not public funds within the scope and meaning of the Washington constitution, but are proprietary funds committed to the custody of the state treasurer as trustee for particular objects and purposes, and subject to disbursement upon authorization of the retirement board, and that repayment of an employee's contribution out of such funds does not require an appropriation by the legislature. In support of this contention, relator cites and relies upon State ex rel. Sherman v. Pape, 103 Wn. 319, 174 P. 468; State ex rel. Washington Toll Bridge Authority v. Yelle, 195 Wn. 636, 82 P.2d 120; State ex rel. Van Orsdel v. Yelle, 15 Wn.2d 320, 130 P.2d 889. Messrs.