direction of the Industrial Commission, could in fact purchase at par and resell at a discount.
Can the Industrial Commission sell at a discount to the purchaser, bonds which the statute requires to be sold at par and for cash? Weare clearly of the opinion that it cannot. The Attorney General argues that if the sale by the bank is in reality a sale by the Industrial Commission, as we hold it to be, payment of expenses and such commissions as were paid and contracted to be paid to Spitzer, Rorick & Co. is not in contravention of the statute prohibiting the sale at less than par. We have examined all of the authorities cited in this connection, and find that, while they support the payment of a reasonable commission to an agent or broker, where one is employed, they do not countenance the allowance cf a commission to a purchaser. To do so in a case where the commission must be subtracted from the par value would result in a sale at less than par—the thing the statute prohibits. This is not an instance where the state has attempted to employ Spitzer, Rorick & Co. as an agent or broker to sell its bonds and to pay them a commission for their services But Spitzer, Rorick & Co. purport to be the purchasers. None of the authorities relied upon by the Attorney General goes so far as to support a discount to the purchaser under the guise of a commission. On the contrary, they declare that a purchaser may not thus secure the bonds at less than par. See Appeal of Whelen et al., 108 Pa. 162, 1 Atl. 88; Hunt v. Fawcett, 8 Wash. 396, 36 Pac. 318; Miller et al. v. Park City et al., 126 Tenn. 427, 150 S. W. go, Ann. Cas. 1913E, 83; Smith v. State ex rel. McNed, 99 Miss. 859, 56 So. 179, 35 L. R. A. (N. S.) 789, and note; Church v. Hadley, 240 Mo. 680, 145 S. W. 8, 39 L. R.A. (N. S.) 248; Armstrong v. Village of Fort Edward, 159 N. Y. 315, 53 N. E. 1116; Davis v. City of San Antonio et al. (Tex. Civ. App.) 160 S. W. 1161; State v. West Duluth .Land Co., 75 Minn. 456, 78 N. W. 115.
Since this cause was submitted there has been a change in the personnel of the Industrial Commission, and there have been statements in the press to the effect that one or more contracts have been entered into involving the sale of the bonds covered by the contract in question. This court is not advised of the terms of any such contract or contracts. The only reference thereto in the record in this case is that made in the motion of the present Attorney General on December 16th, in which he moves that the case be remanded to the trial court “for the reason that a new contract has been entered into involving the subject-matter of this
