San Antonio light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1911-1993, 1923-10-17
ANOTHER ABSURD LAW

Under a new law. as interpreted by
the attorney generals department, all
slot machines used in Texas, with one
exception, are to be taxed. In making
this ruling the states legal department
did rot undertake to point out any rhyme
or reason in this kind of taxation; it
couldn't have done so if that had been
its primary purpose. The author OF the
ruling had only to read the law and
then recite its provisions. literally; for
the law imposes tax on all vending ma
chimes that are operated with coins.
One puts a coin into a machine. and
consequently the mechanism releases a
given commodity; thus there is buying
and selling transaction. The tax applies
to all machines subject to this process,
whether the thing purchased be a con-
crete article or merely service. Appar-
emily the only exception recognized is
the till used on street cars; it is not
classed as slot machine, ard certainly
could not reasonably be. 1t is merely
4 safeguard, computing machine, and
performs function similar to that of
the cash register.
But on the basis of this exception one
might easily make out case against
other provisions of the law Some of
them are absurd.
To begin with. the origin of the entire
idea of taxing slot machines should be
considered. The practice started with
the theory of licensing gambling de-
vices-machines which might or might
not yield something in return, either
nominally or commcnsurately, for a
given patrons money. Some bright
mind conceived the idea that the state
ought to get some revenue out of ques-
tionablc devices. thus a compromise was
made with what many people regarded
as an evil.
When gambling machines were out
lawed, the idea of taxing slot machines,
whatever their nature, persisted. In re-
lation to some vending machines, such
4 practice is no less logical than the
occupation tax as a whole. 1t is con-
oeivable that owners Of certain kinds
of vending machines could engage in a
mercantile business without paving ar
occupation tax, unless the machines
themselves were levied upon. The own.
ers fright even be non-rcsidents of the
state in which their machines were SCI
up.
Put there are kinds and kinds of slo
machines operated with coins. Wherea:
the owner of machine which vend!
chewing-gum, for example. might escape
the occupation tax unless the machine
itself were levied upon, the devices uscc
by puklic-service corporations fall in al
entireIy different class.
Even if two bit gas meters. or the tol
machines used in public telephone booth
could logically and properly be classe'
as slot machines, along with devices tina
vend peanuts. chcwing-gum or candy
they could not be used by their owner
as means of escaping the occupation
tax. Like the street car tills, they ar
mere convenienccs.. The money put int
them by the users is part of tie gros
income of the owners, who use them fo
the conduct of their business. If sue
business, in general is subject to an oc
cupation tax, the tax is double on
when the mechanical devices they us
to facilitate the distribution of publ
service are levied upon. If no occupatio
tax were imposed upon business as
whole, then there would be no warrar
in logic or justice for imposing such
tax upon machines designed to facilitat
, the corduct of that business.
But of course the authors of the la
taxing call slot machines did not col
: slider the matter from this angle.