Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1906-04-22
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
STATE OF NEVADA
In the matter of Alfred Chartz, Esq,
: for Contempt
DECISION
DECISION


ing. as an attorney of record in the
matter of the application of Peter Kair .
for a Writ OF Habeas Corpus filed in
Ihis court a petition for rehearing il
which he made use Of the following
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 I
-grong, 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 con-
nit a contempt of court; and. further
that If the Language was by the court
deemed TO be Objectionable. he apoh-
etzed fl its use and asked that the
sane be stricken from the petition.
In considering the foregoins state
ment it is proper to note that in the
briefs filed by Respondent upon the
hearing of the case in the hrst q
stance. he used language OF similar
import which this court did not take
cognizance of, attributlng its use 10
over zealOusness upon the part OF
counsel. but which was of such a M
ture that the Attorney General in his
reply brief referred to as inslnuat-
ing that the Legislature in enactirg
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 case and its condition at
the time the Objectionable Language
was used should be taken into consid-
Grafton. The proceeding, in whi2h
clis petition was filed, had been
brought to test. the )nstitutionality
of a section of an Act of the Legisla-
ture limiting labor to eight hours per
day in smelters and other ore redGc-
ton works. except in cases of emeT-
gency where life or property is in
imminant danger. Stat. 1903, p. 30.
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 thsr court had pre-
vlously sustained the validity OF tn
enactment as limiting the hours q
labor in underground mines, Re
Boyce, q New. 327, IS p, l., % l.. X
"a: ~, and in mills for the educllon
OF ores, Re Kair % New. so +. 4o4
and that similar statutes had be.. up
held by the Sapreme Court of D Tar
and the Supreme Court of the Unfa
States in the cases of State V. Hold sYn.
IA Utah II and Sc, 46 P. 757 and HOS.
81 L. r. A. 103 and los; Holden
Hardy 169 .. S. 3e6. IS Sup. Ct. 383:
Snort " Mining Company. 80 Utah %
81 r. 72O, 45 L. R. A, COB, md by the
5 rpreme Court of the State of Mis-
sou, re Cantwell, l79 Mo. 245, 70 S.
W. SIS. 1t may not be out of place
here also to note that the latter case
has since been affirmed by the s,
preme Court Ct 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 Co,
in re Kair.
it would seem therefore. a natural
ductiOn from the language il 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-
cisicn in Holden VS.. Hardy. which
sustained the statute from which ours
is copied, and that all the courts NAM
ed were adverse to tue views he au-
yocated. had resorted to abuse OF the
Justices of this and other courts, and
to imputa..ons of their motives.
The language quoted is tantamount
to the Charge that this tribunal ana
the Supreme Courts OF Utah. Missouri
and of the United States and .ne 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 ignorance or base poll
tlcal considerations.
Taking the most charitable view,
If counsel became so imb:cH and mis-
guided by his own ideas and conclu-
sions tha he honestly and eroneously
conceived that we were controlled by
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 were guilty CT the accu-
sation he made because they and We
failed to follow the theories he adj
vocated. and that his opinions ought
to outweigh and turn the scale against
the decisions of the four courts nam
ed including the highest in the land
with nineteen justices concurring
nevertheless II was entirely tnappro
pirate to make the statement in brief
If he really believed or knew O
facts to sustain the charge he .Waft
he ought to have been aware that tht
purpose of such a document is to en-
tighten the court in regard to thu
controlling facts and the law. ant
convince by argument. AID not t.
abuse and yilify, and that this cOur