Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1906-04-26
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
STATE OF NEVADA
In the matter of Alfred Chartz, ESQ,
for Contempt
DECISION

ing. as an attorney of record in the
matter of the application of Peter Kair
for a 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 Site are al
wrong, and written by men who have
never performed manual labor, or oy
politicians and for politics. They do
not know what they wrote about"
Re- pondent 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 were not contempt
ious; dsavowed any intention to co.n-
nit a contempt of court; and. further
that if the Language was by the court
deemed TO be Objectionable. he apoii-
eized fcl is use and. asked that the
same be stricken from the petition.
In considering the foregoins state
ment it is proper to note that IN the
briefs fled 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 20
over zealousness upon the part OF
counsel, but which was Of such a IA
ture that the Attorney General in his
reply brief referred to i 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. II
fear, which exists only in the pyro-
technic Imagination Of cnnsel.'
Also. the case and its condition at
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 a section of an Act Of the L. gisla
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
immT.1nt danger. Stat. 1903, p. 80.
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 Dre-
vlously sustained the validity of tn 3
: enactment as limiting the hours #
labor in underground mines, Re
Boyce, q New 327, Is P. l., 65 L. R.
A. Al, and in mills for the reduction
of ores, Re Kair % New. so P 46i,
and that similar statutes had been up
held by the Supreme Court of Utan
and the Supreme Court of the United
States in the cases of State v. Holden.
IA Utah Il and Sc. As P. 757 and 11O5.
81 L. r. A. 1O3 and 10s; Holden v
Hardy 1853 U. S. 366, Is Sup Ct. 1888 !;
Short v. Mining Company, ~ Utah, 20
81 P. 100 45 L. R. A.. sos and nv the
Supreme Court of the State of Mis-
souri, re Cantwell, l79 Mo. 245, 70 s.
W. 500. 1t may not be out of pla>e
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.
1t would seem therefore. a natural
and proper, il not a 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 ad
vocated. had resorted to abuse of the
Justices of this and other courts, and
to imputa, Ions Of their motives.
The language quoted is tantamoun,
to the Charge that this tribunal anc
the Supreme Courts of Utah Missouri
and of the United States and tae jus
tees thereof who participated in the
opinions upholding statutes limiting
the hours Of labor in mines. smelters
and other ore reduction works. were
misguided by lenoi ance or base poll
t!cal considerations.
Taking the most charitable Wow
if counsel became so imb-o@ and mis-
guided by his own ideas and conclu
sions that he honestly and eroneonsl!
conceived that we were controlled BY
ignorance or sinister motives instead
of by law and justice in determining
constitutional or other questions, anC
and the members of the legislatur
and Governor were guilty Of the accu
SatiOn he made because they and w
failed to follow the theories he ad
vCcated. 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 concurrine
neverthele-5 K was entirely irapprt
pirate to make the statement in brie
If he really believed or knew c
facts to sustain the charge he mad
he ought to have been aware that tn
purpose of such a document is to Ell
tighten the court in regard to tn
controlling facts and the law. an
convince by argument, aid not
abuse and Willy, and that this coui
is not endowed with power to hes
or determine charges impeachng il