Contention is made that the Attorney General is compelled, under the constitution and statutes, to represent state officers, and that therefore she cannot begin an action wherein state officers are defendants. Attention is called to where it is made the duty of the Attorney General to defend all actions against any state officer. The legitimate conclusion of such an argument is that the Attorney General must, if such a situation arise, sit supinely by and allow state officers to violate their duties and be recreant to their trusts, and that instead of preventing such actions it is her duty to defend ·the delinquents. The law can not be given any such construction. Her paramount duty is made the protection of the interest of the people of the state and, where she is cognizant of violations of the constitution or the statutes by a state officer, her duty is to obstruct and not to assist; and where the interests of the public are antago­nistic to those of state officers, or where state officers may conflict among themselves, it is impossible and improper for the Attorney General to defend such state officers. State ex rel. Dunbar v. State Board, 140 Wash. 433.