The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1900-09-23

counts but may question inc Nisuoih
OF such expenditure and the good faitn
Of the claimant. and in the conveyance
OF convicts 10 and from the peniten-
tiarv bv sherirs and similar matters
he Is undoubtedly vested with grea.
latitude in his auditing.
am unable to believe, however, that
he has the same latitude In case
such as is presented by your inquiry.
where an elective officer Of the state
and head 81 q department. mas appro-
pTiated TO tire use OF his department
OF the opinion that the legislature
ana the public hold that officer re-
sponsible for the expenditures or that
fund and that the attitude OF the
the disbursement I believe the audi
tor IS empowered TO examine the face
Of those vouchers and determine
whether they are properly executed.
purpose for witch the appropriation
was rovidsd and whether they are au-
thentic. He may not examine the hc-
count and exercise discretion 10 say
that too much was paid for a certain
article, or that n certain expense "
was unwlse 10 incur.
The statutes are silent as to this
matter and l can only examine ~ oy
the light of reason. IL the auditor
might do more than I have stated
partment - disburaable BIZ the audi
tor and not by the head OF the de-
partment, In the latter event II would
be for the auditor 70 say whether u
was wise, for instance. for the attor-
ney general to attend court In GER
tam place in the state. and whether It
was wise for him 10 go BY one line
Of railway or the other. He would
have the same discretion IN the dis-
bursenent OF the incidental and cleri-
/ cal funds. ] am aware that no state
auditor has ever abused or attempted
to abuse his discretion and that there
Is scarcely a probability that the con-
dition contemplated In my illustration
will ever arise, and simply use It to
determine whether the legislature in
tanded 70 place such discretion In the
hands. OF the auditor II II was IN
tended TO be placed there II Is the
auditors duty In each case to exercise
~ " u was not intended TO be placed
there he may not exercise IL.
| am 30 firmly convinced OF the In
tegrity OF the construction that ! de-
sire TO use another illustration. For
the office OF the chief executive Is
provided travelling and incidental
expense fund. IL the chief executive
deemed Il wise 20 employ special
train In some OF his visits 10 state
institutions and In said employment
should exhaust the entire appropria-
tfon made. | believe that no IL re-
sponsible to the public for what may
have been an act OF unwisdom in SO
exhausting the appropriation and that
the auditor could not refuse 10 allow
the claim II there was money In the
FUND available for its settlement [ do
not believe that the constitution and
the legislature intended that the heads
OF departments In this state must have
each Item Of expenditure passed upon
as TO Its wisdom or expediency, by
state.
Without . further discussion OF this
matter ! advise yon as above. that an
account presented by your office pur-
porting to be charge against the
proper fund. accompanied by the req
uisitc ana properly executed vouchers
ana authenticated by the chief execu-
tive. must be allowed By the auditor
without question unless he has rea-
son 20 believe that the execution Il
not proper and that there Is a fraud
~ thc signature OF some party ap-
pearing In the claim. Very respect
fully. THCS N vASTT
Assistant Attorney General.
IL Will be observed. from the auotatio,
pf the governors inquiry, made bv Mr.
vance. that the former had failed :,
state the facts In the case. namely. tina
the auditor had taken the position tim
The governor could not properly expen,
Tor the benefit Of his family the fund
appropriated for his use as the governo
ot Washington. Mr.. Cheetham's posi-
ton WAS that to approve OF the gov
srhor's Dill would DO 10 set preceden
py which any head OF department
.onin use the states money for the benc
fairs
Mr., cheatham therefore addressed IN,
Following letter 20 MIR. Vance. stain,
the fAetA from his point OF view. anc
questions which are Of particular interes
At this time.
Mr.. sheetham's Inquiry.
Hon. Attorney Ganeral Slr-PermIt
ME q submit for your Consideration
and opinion the following. via: IL
the heaN az state department for
whose disbursement the legislature
mas mats an appropriation for travel
ING aud incidental expenses presents
to thlA ofhee a claim for payment out
" alrh fund, and said claim seems
on ne faer 60 be unusual or Irregular,
ON which account the auditor asks tor
an explanation. and said head OF the
department. admits that part. OF the
expenses WAS incurred for persons
other than himself or those related
70 his otiice-fuf persons, for instance,
related g himself by family ties
thus enlightened IN regard TO tho
nature az the claim. IL the auditor
officially bound to allow such claims
aud draw his warrant therefore,
III the mead or department, IN or.
der 70 ray travelling expenses for
which an appropriation has been
made. secures a mileage book paid for
hy warrant, has he tho right 20 use
sald mileage book when sraveling for
mere preSpnat or political purposes
u the bead OF department for
whose travelling expenses In the dis.
charge at his ofieial duties an APP
preparation Ia made can take his fam
rs with him on his trips and charge
the expense 10 the state. then may he
riot send the members ~ his family
wherever Ae of they may list and have
same right TO reimbursement for the
expenses thus incufredf
Is claim a iuat or legal one where
tho uhfrrt ~ the expcns. - other than
that contemplated IN the apprupria.
tlNnf Does the object ~ an Rppro-
rriatipn Tor travelling expense Of a
department. Include The expenses 0f
hin famiS r. 4 the duty ~ this o.
FEE 80 have regard TO tire legality OF
eiaiusf Respectfully submitted
NEAL C1fkETMAAI
State Auditor
The Auaitor Sustained.
To this letter Mr. Vance replied WIT
an opinion ia effect sustaining the autiiio
IN his position, ana declaring pusltlvsl
that the travelling EXPENSE fund could ne
a.