Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1906-04-11
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
STATE OF NEVADA
In the matter of Alfred Chartz, ESD,
for Contempt
DECISION

OCCIoION
Respondent was commanded to
show cause whw he should not be
adjudged guilty of contempt for hay-
ing as an attorney of record in the
matter of the application OF Peter Kair
for Writ of habeas Corpus filed in
this court petition for rehearing ir
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
"rong, and written by men who have
never performed manual labor. or oy
politicians and for politics. They 10
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 conf
nit contempt of court; and. further
that if the language was by the court
deemed to be Objectionable, lie apoli-
,oized fol its use and asked hat the :
SAN be stricken from the petition.
In considering the foregoins state
ment II IA 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 a,
import which this court did rot take J
cognizance of, attributing it's use 10
over zealousness upon the part OF
counsel, but which was OF such A.
lure that the Attorney General in his
reply brief referred to l. 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
1ear, which exists only in the pyro-
tecnnlr imagination OF c'Insei-
80 the case and its condition ut
AZ time the Objectionable language
~as used. should be taken 'rFo cons
Grafton. The proceeding, IN d
IS petition was filed, b. mi .h
brought to test the [ 'nsf' ID been
of a section of an Act nationality
ture limiting labor r. II the Legisla
day in smelters > J eight hours pei
ton works, e. Ind other ore reduc
gency whe -.cept in cases of emer
mminar re life or property is il
This II danger. Stat. 1903, p. 80
a. Act had passed the Legislature
most unanimously and had receiv
GU tue 1ONcIuOI dppIONd Al Iue
time of filing the petition, respond n,
was aware that the court haA r~e
vlously sustained the validity of tn
enactment as limiting the hours q
labor in underground mines, RI
Boyce 81 New. 327, IS P. l., 65 L. R
A. A., and in mills for the reduction
of ores, Re Kair % New 80 P. 46l
and that similar statutes had been up
held by the Supreme Court Of Utai
and the Supreme Court of the Unite:
States in the cases of State " Holden
IA Utah II and Sc, as P. 757 and 11O5
81 L. r. A. 1O3 and 1OS: Holden
Hardy 1863 U. S. 366. Is Sup Ct. 3S3
Short v. Mining Com pany. 20 Utah, q
81 p. 720 AZ T.. - \. 6n2 aud nv tn
Supreme Court of the State of Mis-
souri, re Cantwell, l79 Mo. 245, 70
W. $50. 1t may not be out of pla,
here, also to note that the latter cas-
has since been affirmed by the g
preme Court Of the United States an
more recently the latter tribunal, a,
herring to its opinion therein and i
the Utah cases. has refused to inter
fere with the decisions of this CO..
in re Kair
1t would seem therefore,; natura
and proper, if not a. necessary do
duction from the language. in question
when taken in connection with tn
law of the cases as enunciated b
this and other courts, that cOunse
finding that the opinion of the highes
courtoin the land was Adverse .instea
,nf favorable 70 his contentious. in tina
: 1T specifically affirmed the Utah d.
cision in Holden VS.. Hardy whicl
sustained the statute from which our
Is copied and that all the courts nan
ed were adverse to TIE views he aG
yOcated. had resorted to abuse of tn
Justices of this and other courts. an
to imputa Ions of their motives. :
The language quoted is tantamoun
to the charge that this tr;hu-"' an
the Supreme Courts of Utah. Nilsson
and of the United States and .Ae Ju
.tfces thereof who participated in til
opinions upholding statutes limitin
the hours cf labor in mines. smelter
and ether ore deduction workss wer
misguided by ikn0~an or base pol
tlcalb cpnsideratiops.i "a 81 u
i Takings thee most charitable viev
II counsel became so imbued and NIL
guided by his own ideas and concl'
eions that, he honestly and eroneousl
conceived that we were controlled .
Ignorance sorpsinistes, motives instS1
OF 0HSl4Wf dHO oJuSuCe ilfs uetei iniusii
constitutions oraother questions. an
that these other courts and judge
and the members of the Legislative
and Governor were guilty OF the acc
sation he made because they and
failed to follow the. 5theories he q
socated, and that his opinions Dag
IL outweigh and turn the seals ag1iH
the decisions of the four courts nal
ed including the highest in the lal
with nineteen justices concurrin
nevertheless it was entirely inapp'
pirate to make the statement in bril-
II he really believed or knew
facts to SUSTAIN the charge hes ma
he ought to have been aware that {