Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1906-04-20
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
STATE OF NEVADA
In the matter of Alfred Chartz, ESQ,
for Contempt
DECISION

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 q Writ OF fia5eaS 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
..rong. and written by men who have
never performed manual labor. or by
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 were not contempt
i0us: disavowed any intention to c"un-
nit a contempt Of court; and. further
that if the language was by the court
ueemed 10 be Objectionable. he apoh-
cflad frl it, '--e ara asked that the
same be eirick.n from the petition.
In considering the f0regOins 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 ~se %
over zealousness upon the part OF
counsel. but which was Of such n
ture that the Attorney General in MS
reply. brief referred TO as insinUat-
ing that the Legislature in enactii3
and this court in sustaining the law
were being ''impeled or controlled by
some mythical political influence "
fear. which exists only in ne DyrO-
1echn'c I'M ginatiOp OF CnnSe].'
Also. the case and its condition at
the time the objectionable Language
was used. should he taken into consid-
Grafton The proceeding, in wnt2h
mis- petition was filed, had been
brought to test the rnstituti0nality
Of a section Of an Act of the Legisla-
ture limiting labor TO eight hours per
day in smelters and other ore redEc-
ton works. except in cases Of emeT
gency where life or property is in
imminant danger. STAT. 1908. p. 81
This Act had passed the Legislature
almost unanimously and had receiy-
ed the Governors approval At the
time Of filing the petition, respond NJ
was aware that the court haH nro.
vlously sustained the validity Of tn :
enactment as limiting the hours =
labor in underground mines. Re
Boyce, q New. 327, IS P. l., Go L. r.
A. Il. and in mills for the reduction
Of ores, Re Kair % New. so ?. 46t.
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.
Il Utah Il and sc. 46 P. 757 and 1115.
81 \. r. A. 103 and 108: Holden V
Hardy 169 L. S. 36G. IS Sup. Ct 383 !;
Short V. Mining Company. - Utah. 20
81 p. 720 - L, z A. COS and Nv the
Supreme Court of the State of Mis-
souri, re Cantwell ll9 Mo 245. Is :.
W. $50. II may not be out of pa %
here, also to note that the latter ca sc
has since been affirmed by the
preme Court Of the United States. and
more recently the latter tribunal. al
herring to lis opinion therein and in
the Utah cases. has refused to inter
fere with the decisions Of this CO
in re Kair
t would seem therefore. a natural
and proper if not necessary de-
GuctiOn 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
# favorable 10 HIS contentious IN that
Il specifically affirmed the Utah de-
cisinn in Holden VS.. Hardy VIII h
sustained the statute from which cur:
is copied. and that all the courts nam
ed were adverse to t.-a views he ad
Tocated. had resCrted TO abuse of the
Justices of this and other courts. and
to imputauons Of their motives.
The language oroled is tantamCunt
to the Charge that this trihU~"' 60
the Supreme Courts of Utah Missouri
and of the United States and ne JUS
tees thereof who participated in the
opinions UNFOLDING statutes limiting
the hours & lal or in mines. smeltor-
and other ere reduction works. We're
misguided by lgnO anCe or base poll
Teal considerations.
Taking the most charitable Wow
if counsel became so imb.:c@ and mis-
guided by his own lucas and cOnclu
sons that he honestly AMI erOneously
conceived that we were ~QtrOlled b.
ignorance or sinister motives instead
Of bv law and justice IN determining
constitutional or other questions. ana
that these other cOu IS and judge!
and the members of the Legislature
aud Governor were guilty Of the accu
sation he made because they and w
failed TO follow the theories he a(
yocated, and that his opinions ough
to outweigh and turn the scale a9ains
the decisions of the four courts nan
81 including the highest in the Ian
with nineteen justices concurrin:
neverthele.5 ,. was entirely inappr
pirate to make the statement in brie
If he really believed or knew
facts to sustain the charge he mad
he ought to have been aware that tf
purpose of such document is TO e.
tighten the court in regard to tf
controlling facts and the law. ar
convince hv aron.llC # P-H not