Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1906-04-25
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
STATE OF NEVADA
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 a Writ of Habeas Corpus filed in
this court 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 all
wrong, and written by men who have !
never performed manual labor, or 3y {
politicians and for politics. They do |
not know what they wrote about"
Respondent appeared in response 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 con-
nit a contempt of court; and further
that if the language was by the court
deemed TO be Objectionable. he apoll-
gized fol its use and asked that the
same be stricken from the petition.
In considering the foregOins state
ment it is proper 10 note that in the
briefs fled by Respondent upon the
hearing Of the case in the first
stance, he used language OF similar
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 IA
ture that the Attorney General in his
reply brief referred to / as insinuat-
ing that the Legislature in enacting
and this court in sustaining the law
were being 'impelled or controlled by
some mythical political influence IT
fear, which exists only in the pyro-
techrtc Imagination Ct. c1lnsel."
Also. the case and its condition ut
the time the objectionable language
was used. should be taken into consid-
Grafton The proceeding, in whi2h
mis- petition was filed, had beer
brought to test the 'nstitutional%
of section of an Act of the Legisla-
tire limiting labor to eight hours per
Cay in smelters and other ore reduc-
ion works, except in cases of emer-
gency where life or property is in
imminant danger Stat. 1903, D. 3d.
This Act had passed the Legislature
almost unanimously and had receiv-
time Of fling the petition, respond M
was aware that the court had nre-
vlously sustained the validity of tn
enactment as limiting the hours II
labor in underground mines, Re
Boyce q New. 327, rs P. l., 65 L. f
A. AZ, and in mills for the reduction
Of ores, Re Kair % New. 50 P. 46i,
and that similar statutes had been up
held by the Supreme Court Of Utah
and the Supreme Court of the United
States in the cases Of State " Holden,
IA Utah II and Sc, as P 757 and 11O5,
81 L. r. A. 103 and los: Holden v
Hardy 1863 U. S. 366, IS Sup. Ct 1888;
Short v. Mining Company, 20 Utah, 20.
81 P. 720. As l.. r. A.. COS and bv the
Supreme Court of the State of Mis-
souri, re Cantwell l79 Mo. 245, ~ s.
w. 500. 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 Cou'
in re Kair.
it would seem therefore, a natural
and proper, if notsa 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 highest
court in the land was adverse instead
Of favorable to his contentious. in that
it specifically affirmed the Utah de-
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 adj
Eocated. had resorted to abuse of the
Justices o. this and other courts. and
to imputa ,.ons of their motives.
The language quoted is tantamOunt
to the Charge that this tribunal and
the Supreme Courts Of Utah. Missouri
and of the United States and ,ne Jus
tees thereof who participated in the
oU:nions unfolding statutes limiting
the hours Of labor in mines. smelters
and other ore reduction works, were
misguided by ignorance or base poll
tlcal considerations.
Taking the most charitable Wow
if counsel became so imbco1 and mis-
guided by his own ideas and ccnclu'
sions that he honestly and eroneously
ignorance or sinister motives instead
of by law and justice in determining
constitutional or other questions, and
that these other courts and judges
and the members OF the LEGISLATURE
and Governor We're guilty Of the accu
sation he made because they and w
failed to follow the theories he ad
yocated, and that his opinions ough
to outweigh and turn the scale agains
the decisions of the four courts nam
e1 including the highest in the lane
with nineteen justices concurrine
neverthelezG !: was entirely inapprC
pirate to make the statement in brie
If he really believed or l-new O
facts TO sustain the charge he mad
he ought to have been aware that tn
purpose of such q document is to er
tighten the court in regard to tn