ARK.] MC CARROLL, COMMISSIONER OF REVENUES, V. 715 WILLIAMS. MCCARROLL, COMMISSIONER OF REVENUES, V: WILLIAMS'. Opinion delivered Febrnitry 28, 1938. 1. STATU TES— CONSTRUCTION.—In ascertaining the intent of the Legislature, the court looks primarily to the language of the statute; and, if the language used is plain and unambigixous, there is no occasion for construction. 2. STATUTE S — CONSTRUCTION.—Courts cannot , add to, take from, nOr change the language of the statute to give ef4ct to any supposed intention of the Legislature, where the language is plain and unambiguous. 3. TAXATION—SLOT MA CHINES.—Under § 3` of ict No. 137 of the Acts of 1933, providing that . each slot, cup or other place for the insertion of a coin, token or slug 'tshall constitute a separate and distinct machine subject in each instance to tax as a separate machine," the tax is to be computed on the number of openings, slots, cups or other places for insertion of coins, tokens or slugs necessary to the operatióri of the machine, and the fact that the machine can be operated by the use of ofie slot, rendering the other two slots unnecessary; is immaterial.. 4. TAXATION—SLOT MA CHINES—EXCESSWENESS OF TAx.—Where the language of the act placing a tax on the operation of slot machines is plain and unambiguous, the question of excessiveness of the, tax is one that addresses itself to the Legislature, and not to the courts.
: 716 MCCARROLL, COMMISSIONER OF REVENUES, V. [195 WILLIAMS. 5. TAxAno N —STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION—nal' MAC HI NES.—Where, in an action to enjoin the Commissioner of Revenues from collecting a tax of more than $5 per annum on slot machines, the evidence showed that the machines had three slots—one for a five cent coin, one for a ten cent coin and one for a twenty-five cent coin—held that, under act No. 137 of 1933, each opening or slot for the insertion of a coin by which the machine is operated constitutes a separate and distinct machine, and is subject to a tax as a separate machine. Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Court ; Frank II. Dodge, Chancellor ; reversed. • J. Hugh Wharton, for appellant. J..E. Ray, for appellee. DONHAM, J. This appeal is from a decree of the Pulaski chancery court enjoining the appellant, as Commissioner of Revenues, from collecting a tax of more than $5 per year on coin slot automatic musical instruments, regardless of the number of slots with which such instruments are equipped. Appellee filed his complaint in said chancery court alleging that he is the owner and operator of several coin slot automatic' musical machines and. is ready, willing and offers to pay the sum of $5 per year privilege tax on each of said machines ; that said maChines are equipped with from two to three slots, one. a five cent slot, one a ten cent slot, and one a twenty-five cent slot ; that a five cent coin placed in the first slot will play one piece of music or record ; that ten cents placed in the second slot will play two pieces of music or two records; and that twenty-five cents placed in the third slot will play five pieces of music or five rec9rds ; or that two five cent . pieces placed in the five cent slot will play the same music or records-that "the ten cents will play, and five five cent pieces placed in the five cent slot will play the same pieces of music or records as the twenty-five cent- piece ; that the ten and twenty-five_ cent slots are not necessary to operate said machine g .", , It was further alleged that the second and third , 1■-,its are put on said machines for convenience only , ; that all of'said slots sell the same music or records, arid Drat they do not sell anything else but music; that said machines hold a certain number of musical
ARK.] MCCARROLL, COMMISSIONER OF REVENUES, V. 717 WILLIAMS records, and all can be played from the five cent slot, and all from the ten cent slot, and all from the twenty-five cent slot. It was further alleged that the Commissioner of Revenues was endeavoring to collect a tax on said machines in an amount equal to $5 per slot; and that • unless restrained the Commissioner would confiscate or destroy • said machines unlawfully. It- was alleged that the privilege tax on said machineS is -$5 per year, regardless of the number of slots ; and that appellee - has offered to pay this sum for each machine used. To the complaint, the - appellant here filed his de-murrer alleging that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. At the trial of the case in the lower coiirt the cause was submitted upon the complaint, demurrer and stipulation of facts. By said stipulation of facts it was agreed that appellee owns a number of coin slot automatic musical instruments and places in said machines from ten to twenty-four records ; that each of the machines is equipped with from two to three slots in which a coin is placed that plays a record, and these records are played over and over until changed or reserviced ; that in the machines that have two slots, one is a five cent slot, and by placing a five cent piece in the five cent slot the ma-- chine will play one piece of music, and by placing a ten cent piece in the ten cent shit the machine - will play two pieces of music; that in the machines having three slots, one is a five cent slot, another a ten cent slot, and the third a twenty-five cent slot; that in these machines a twenty-five cent piece placed in the twenty-five cent slot will play five pieces of music, and that twO five cent pieces placed in the five cent slot will play the same music or records as one ten cent piece placed in the ten cent slot, and five five cent pieces placed in the five cent slot will play the same music as the twenty-five cent piece will play when placed in the twenty-five cent slot; that all three slots are on the same machine and play from the same records and from the same record carrier ; And that said machines are equipped with two and three slots at
718 MCCARROLL, COMMISSIONER OF REVENUES, V. [195 WILLIAMS; the factory ; that the-Commissioner of Revenues has notified the appellee here that • the tax on said machines will be $5 per machine, or $5 per slot where the machine has mote than one slot; that there . are- slot or vending machines with more than one slot where each) slot sells a different, article; such . as cigar and cigarette vending machines. It was further stipulated That the appellee 'offered to pay-.$5 per year privilege -tax -on 'each machine, but refused. to pay $5 fOr each additional slot otr kai r d machines , having more than one slot: Upon a hearing, the trial court:entered a decree overruling the demurrer and„ restraining : the 'Commissioner of Revenues, his agents and employees, from collecting a tax of more than $5 per year on coin slot automatic musical instruments, from which decree defendant, appellant here, prayed an appeal . to this court which was granted. • There is hut one• question involved- here ; and that is whether the tax is $5 per annum for each "coin slot automatic musical instrument," or $5 per annum for each slot with which such machines are equipped. Act 137 of the Acts of 1933 was passed for the purpose of amending act 167 of the General Assembly of 1931. Under act 167 of the Acts of 1931 the tax on such machines was•$10 per annum, regardless of the number of slots with which they were equipped. By act 137 of the Acts of 1933, the law was amended so that the.tax was $5 per annum on each machine, each slot to be counted as a separate machine. Section 3 of said act 137 is -as follows : "Each opening or slot; cup or other place for insertion of said coin, token, slug or otherwise, necessary to operate, shall constitute a separate and distinct machine, subject in each instance to tax as a separate machine." It is argued by appellee that it NVas riot the intention of the Legislature to tax "Coin slot automatic musical 'instruments" more than $5 for each machine, regardless of the number of' . slots with which the machines might be equipped. It is further' argued 'that since said machines can be operated by inserting' a coin in any one of the
ARK.] MCCARROLL, COMMISSIONER OF REVENUES, V. 719 WILLIAMS three slots with which the machines are equipped, that two of. said slots are not necessary to the operation of the machine and, therefore, are not taxable under the express terms of the statute. It is also argued .by 'appellee that to impose• a tax of $5 for each -slot would result the _collection 'of an amount on machines equipped with three slots that would be burdensome and excessive. In-ascertaining the intent of . the Legislature, we must look primarily q o the language used in the statute; and, if this language is found to be plain anennambignous, there is no occasion for construction: In the case of Berry -v. CouSart . Bagou Drainage Dist., 181 Ark. -974,- 28 S. W. 2d 1060, thiS court said : "The primary-rule in the construction . of statutes is to ascertain and give effect , to the intention of -the Legislature,:.which pvimarily must be determinedsfrom the language of the statute itself:7'. • In the -case of Berry v: Sale, 184 Ark. 655, 43 S. W. 2d 225, this court said: - "This court has uniformly held that;: in the construction and interpretation of statute's, the intention of the Legislature is to he ascertained and given, effect from the language of the 'act if •hat can be done.: . The reason is that statutes are written to be understood bv the people to whom they apply, and their words and phrases are considered and used in their .plain and ordinary, as distinguished from their technical, meaning, where .the language is plain and unambiguous. In such cases it . is said that, where the intention of the Legislatnre iS dear from the words used, there is no room for construction, • and no excuse for adding to or changing the meaning of the language employed." Courts -Cannot-add fo, take from or change the language of the statUte to give effect to any supposed intention of the LegislatUre, where the language is plain and unambiguous.' By the express terms of' act 137 Of the Acts of 1933, "coin slot automatic musical instrn-ments" are taxed ; and by § 3 of : said act said tax is to be computed on the number of openings, slots, cups. Or other places for insertion of coins; - tokens or slugs neceSsary to the operatiOn of the Machine, • This'section -pro-
720 MCCARROLL, COMMISSIONER OF REVENUES, V. [195_ WILLIAMS. vides that each slot, cup, or other place for insertion of a coin, token or slug " shall constitute a separate and distinct machine, subject in each instance to tax as a , separate machine." We believe that the statute is plain and unambiguous and that there is no occasion for construction. The court cannot indulge in speculation as to what might have been in the mind of the Legislature ; but the act must be given effect according to its plain and obvious meaning. To place any other construction on the statute, we believe, would place the court in the attitude of assuming legislative authority. It is argued that since such machines can be operated by the use of one slot, that the other two slots with which the machine is equipped are not necessary to its operation. We do not agree with appellee in this view. Machines equipped with three slots have one slot for a five cent piece, one for a ten cent piece, and one fo er a twenty-five cent piece. If one desires to operate the machine by using a ten cent piece, he can do so only by placing the coin in the ten cent slot. If he wishes to operate the machine by using a twenty-five cent piece, he can do so only by placing the coin in the twenty-five cent slot. And, hence, we conclude that any one of the slots is as necessary to the operation of the machine as either of the other slots. It is further argued that to permit the taxing of each slot at the rate of $5 per slot would result in excessive taxation. If the words of the statute are plain a-nd unambiguous, and we believe they .are, then the excessive-ness of the tax, if such there be, is a matter that would address itself with force to the legislative . department of our state; but it is not a matter that can be given consideration by the courts. The propriety, expediency, wisdom and necessity of a valid statute are matters that address themselves to the Legislature, and not to the courts. The validity of the statute is not questioned. Placing upon the statute that construction which its plain and unambiguous terms require, we hold that act 137 of the Acts of 1933, being §§ 13420 to 13427, Pope's Dig., in-_
ARK.] 721 elusive, requires payment of $5 per annum on each "coin slot automatic musical instrument" and each opening or slot for the insertion of a coin or coins, by which the machines are operated, must be construed to constitute a separate and distinct machine and subject in each instance to a tax as a separate machine. The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to sustain. the.demurrer of the appellant, and for other proceedings not inconsistent herewith.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.