Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1906-04-19
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
STATE OF NEVADA
In the matter Of Alfred Chartz, ESQ,
for Contempt
DECISION

DECISION
Respondent was commanded to
show cause whw he should not be
adjudged guilty of contempt for hav-
ing, as an attorney of record in the
matter of the application of Peter Kair
for a Writ of Habeas Corpus filed in
this court a petition for rehearing IL
which he made use OF the following
statement:
I'm my opinion. the decisions favor
ing the power of the State to limit the
hours of labor, on the ground of the
police power of the State are all
.yrong, and written by men who have
never performed manual labor. or ov
politicians and for politics. They 10
not know what they wrote about"
Respondent APPEARED in response to
the citation, filed a brief and made an
extended address to the Court in
which he took the position that the
words in question We're not contempt
ious: dsavowed any intention to COM
nit contempt of court; and. further
that if the language was by the court
deemed to be Objectionable. he apoh-
gtzed f., It's vge and asboh that the
same he elrichen from the petition.
In considering the foregoins state
ment it is proper to note that in the
briefs filed by Respondent upon the
hearing of the case in the first n
stance. he used language of similar
import which this court did not take
cognizance of, attributing its use %
ever zealousness upon the part OF
counsel, but which was of such a ~
ture that the Attorney General in his
80 in SiyaI f.
ing that the Legislature in enacting
and this court in sustaining the law
were being "impelled or controlled by
some mythical political influence ,r
fear, which exists only in the pyro-
technic Imagination OF cunsel'
Also. the case and its condition ut
the time the Objectionable Language
was used. should be taken into consid
Grafton. The proceeding, in which
mis- petition was filed, had been
brought to test the ,nstitutionality
of section of an Act of the Legisla-
ture limiting labor to eight hours per
day in smelters and other ore redrc-
ton works, except in cases of emer.
gency where life or property is in
imminant danger. Stat 1908. .. So
This Act had passed the Legislature
almost unanimously and had receiv-
ed the Governors approval. At the
time Of filing the petition, respond NJ
was aware that the court had nre-
viously sustained the validity of tn :
enactment as limiting the hours ..
labor in underground mines, Re
Boyce, q New. 327, IS P. l., 65 L. r.
A. AZ, and in mills for the reduction
Of ores, Re Kair % New. 80 P. 46i
and that similar statutes had been up
held by the Supreme Court Of Titan
and the Supreme Court of the United
States in the cases of State v. Holden
II Utah II and Sc, 46 P. 757 and 11O5.
= L. Z. A. 103 and los: Holden v
Hardy 1863 U. S. 366. Is Sup. Ct. 3S3:
Snort v. Mining Company. .D Utah. 20
81 p. 720, As L. r. A, 6O3. and by the
Supreme Court OF the State Of Mis-
souri, re Cantwell l79 Mo. 245, Is :.
W. $50. 1t may not be out of place
here. also to note that the latter case
has since been affirmed by the s
preme Court of the United States, and
more recently the latter tribunal. al.
herring to its opinion therein and in
the Utah cases. has refused to inter
fere with the decisions of this Co
in re Kair.
It would seem therefore. a natural
and proper. if not necessary de-
duction from the language in question
when taken in connection with the
law of the cases as enunciated by
this and other courts, that counsel
finding that the opinion of the highes,
court in the land was adverse instead
Of favorable 10 HIS contentious. in that
cr,oo;Gco1ly ffirr,pd tho fol da
cision in Holden VS.. HARDY which
sustained the statute from which ours
is copied. and that all the courts nam
ed were adverse to tie views he ad
Iocated. had resorted to abuse of the
Justices of this and ether courts. and
to imputa Ions of their motives.
The laneaage quoted is tantamcunt
to the :-I.a.ge that this tribun"l a"H
the Supren,e Courts of Utah. Missouri
and of the United States and lie Jus
tees thereof who participated in thf
opinions UNFOLDING statutes limiting
the hours e labor in mines smelter:
and other ore reduction works. were
misguided by lgno' ance CT base poll
teal considerations.
! Taking the most charitable view
if counsel became so imb-c| and mis-
guided by his own IDEAS and conclu
sions that he honestly and eroreousl.
conceived that we were controlled 3,
ignorance or sinister motives instead
Of bv law and justice in determining
constitutional or other questions, ant
that these other cou is and judges
and the members of the Legislature
and Governor were guilty Ct the accu
sation he made because they and W
failed to follow the theories he az
yocated and that his opinions ough
to outweigh and turn the scale agains
the decisions of the four courts nan
e. including the highest in the Ian
with nineteen justices concurrin'
nevertheless !. was entirely inappr
pirate to make the statement in brie
If he really believed or knew I
facts to sustain the charge he mao
he ought to have been aware that tt
y @v~f ~