or before i begin i'd just like commissioner there there is the ordinary business matter opposing counsel has brought some demonstrative exhibits he shown them to me and i'm not comfortable with them in light of the contents and if you wish me to address that i'd be an award of interest in the approximately seventy six million dollars that had been held in the protest during the course of that litigation and they argued that that interest to work to the horse racing f interest on their rights and seventy six million dollars for the entire time it was in protest money's gone into the horse racing so it's the state's position again simply to reiterate that the circuit specifically interested in this situation the rows were the what was supposed to be a proper distribution of these surcharges into the horse racing phone and then out to the racetracks was circumstances and i had one of the points that i'd like to make is a preliminary matter is that there's really no dispute that these more public forums the race tracks have repeatedly emphasized that all the surcharge before the distribution it made passed a law saying you know we made a mistake as a policy matter we're now passing a law that says all that money should go back to the casinos there would be perfectly constitutional there was no ves screening industry in illinois and then it was an appropriate exercise of the legislative authority to require the these casinos are the highest earning ones to pay these three percent surcharge for two years for that money to be positive daily into a dispute over is what did the legislature specifically provide if anything for this unusual situation in which they didn't have to be provided at this stage should compensate the racecars for the last time value of that it's an easy beat us and that the only reasonable interpretation is that one is being asked by the racetracks in this case because primarily it disregards the immediately following the sentence of this statute this is when still a question of law for the court to resign using the normal canons and tools of interpretation it is disposal in those include i think most importantly that you can weed out of the statute this second clause is  the stairs to rear end of the plane or loses interest is payable to a new simple taxing body that whose taxes protest in the case if it is the pain is made in connection with one of it loses then this steve treasurer has to figure out interest from the protest monies fun which is found to pay to the state you know to part of the revenue or general  loses and it's not one of these facilities local tax instantiates that protested then there is no provision in the statute for the payment by the state of interest that interpretation significantly is confirmed by the of the legislature or maybe it was the same session but in the following year when they added the provision about local taxing statutes each time they made it clear that the first provision was intended to cover written but that when the court goes through the entire process of looking at the various the the language of the statute in its entirety does not exclude anybody surplusage doesn't give it an absurd meaning treats the naturally consist of interest and money that's already in the form because it's under the control of the racing board the racing board doesn't have to go elsewhere or some other fund to find interest to make an award as the circuit for order in both of them in favor of the four which is the horseracing equity trust fund which is a separate fund in the in the treasury now one of your ordinary subject to him you will appropriation war will be seen in other cases lack of appropriations it's automatic they want to preserve the industry because it's not just a couple of people to restrict coverage the whole protest for action which resound against the u c thus the ownership of the money the ownership of the money we're talking about was this is not more the owner of the money from the get go plenty of taxpayer gak his money back and was entirely in the interest of the soup invested in earn money on this money was not owned by the racetracks until it was distributed to them out of the horse racing ones they presented to the circuit court and the circuit court rely on they said that the state you know is trying to do an additional words that stare she what they're saying is that these stereotypes could have been drafted more clearly in doing so would have used different words effective flies in the teeth of the statute the purpose of the statute was to get these surcharges to the restraints as quickly as possible nothing in the statutes of course the conclusion that they were intended that the legislature specifically intended that they would get extra money if that process were substantially delay and when you look at the language of the statute and its quota i think in mind in in a page eighty three the pennies are a brief it points out that the only interest that could be paid to the race track with i want to emphasize that the question before the court is not what the legislature would have done if it had contemplated the usual situation presented by this case the nominee states like this that i'm aware of in fact this is the only one in which you have a situation in which there is