Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1906-04-03
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
STATE OF NEVADA
In the matter Of Alfred Chartz, ESQ,
for Contempt
DECISION

In the matter Of Alfred Chartz, ESQ.,
for Contempt
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 Writ OF fiabeas Corpus filed in
this court a petition for rehearing IL
which he made use of the following
statement:
In 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 al
wrong, and written by men who have
never performed manual labor or 3y
politicians and for politics. They 10
not know what they wrote about"
Respondent appeared in resp use to
the citation, filed brief and made an
extended address to the Court in
which he took the position that the
words in question were not contempt
iOus; disavowed any intention to COM
nit a contempt of court; and. further
that if the Language was by the court
deemed to be Objectionable. he apoli-
giZed FOL its use and asked t',at the
81 be s1ricr n from the petition.
In considering the foregoins state
Nent 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 simllir
import which this court did not take
cognizance of, attributing its use 10
over zealOusness upon the part OF
counsel. but which was of such M
ture that the Attorney General in his
reply brief referred to as insinuat-
ing that the Legislature in enactins
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 CO sc and its condition at
the time the objectionable Language
was used. should be taken into consid-
GRAFTON. The proceeding, in which
this petition was filed, had been
brought to test the CDnstitutionality
of a section of an Act of the Legisla-
ture limiting labor to eight hours per
day in smelters and other ore reduc-
ton works. except in cases of emer-
SChCy "IClt lliS vi HIoptlly Is IL
imminant danger Stat. 1908, D. 81.
This Act had passed the Legislature
almost unanimously and had receiv-
ed the Governors approval. At the
time of filing the petition, respond Mt
was aware that the court haF PRO
vlously 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. so P Ash
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,
IA Utah Il and sc, 46 P. 757 and 1105.
81 l.. r. A. 1O3 and 1OS: Holden V
Hardy 1863 L. S. 366, IS Sup. CT. 3S3;
Short V. Mining Company. ~ Yah. 20.
~ p. 72O. 45 J.. = 49, 6A3 and by the
Supreme Court of the State of Mis-
souri, re Cantwell, lI9 Mo. 245. Is s
w. 500, It may not be out of pie 20
here. also to note that the latter case
has since been affirmed by the s
preme Court Ct the United States. and
more recently t. 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.
1t would seem therefore. a natural
and proper, if not a necessary de-
GuctiOn from the language in question.
when taken IN connection with the
law of the cases as e1unciated by
this and other courts, that counsel.
GrIi-,r that tho C11ininr of he iul, ~
court IN the land was adverse instead
Of favorable 10 his conteDtions. in tnat
If specifically affirmed the Utah de-
cision n Holden vs.. Hardy. which
sustained the statute from which ours
is copied, and that all the courts nam
cd were adverse to tie views he ad-
yocated. had resCrted 10 abuse of the
Justices OF this and other courts, and
to implta,.Cns Of their motives.
The language quoted IS tanCamcunt
to the charge that this tribune! az
the : Supreme Courts Of Utah. Missouri
and e the United StateS aud ,le jus
tees thereof who participated i'll the
opiDi rs unfolding statutes limiting
the hours Of labor in mines. smelterS
and other ore reduction works. were
misguided by IenO ance CT base poll
cal considerations.
Taking the most charitable view
if counsel became Sc iTbUed and mis-
guided by his own ideas and conc'n
eions that he honestly and eroneously
conceived that we We're controlled BY
ignorance or sinister motives instead
Of by law and justice IL determining
constitutional or other questions. anf
that these other cOu IS and judges
and the members of the Legislature
and Governor were guilty Of the accu
sation he made because they and W.
failed to follow the theories he at
vocated, and that his opinions ough
to outweigh and turn the scale agains
the decisions Of the four courts nan
ed including the highest in the Ian
with nineteen justices concurrins
nevertheless it was entirely inappr'
pirate to maize the sta ement in brie
If he really believed or knew c
facts to sustain the charge he mad