Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1906-04-17
w THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
STATE OF NEVADA
In the matter Of Alfred Chartz, Esq,
for Contempt
DECISION

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 fiabeas Corpus filed in
this court a petition for rehearing III
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
wrong, 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 We're not contempt
ious: disavowed any intention to COM
nit a contempt of court; and. further
that if the Language was by the court
deemed to he Objectionable. he apoh-
gixed fo1 il rsa and asked that the
sare 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 first n
stance, he used language OF similar
import which this court did not take
cOgnizance of, attributing its ~5e 10
over ZealOusness upon the part OF
counsel. but which was of such a NJ
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 ,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 which
mis- petition was filed, had been
brought to test the 'nstitutionality
of 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 eme1-
gencv where life or property is in
imminant danger. Stat. 1908, p. 3d.
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 ha1 n~c-
vlously sustained the validity of tn :
enactment as limiting the hours #
labor in underground mines. Re
Boyce. q New. 327, 70 P. l., 65 L. R.
A. A. and in mills for the reduction
of ores, Re Kair % New 80 P. 46i,
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.
II Utah II and Sc. 46 P. 757 and 1105.
81 L. r. A. 1O3 and 138: Holden V
Hardy 169 L. s. 36G. rs Sup. Ct. 3S3 !:
Short V. Mining Company. 20 Utah, 20
81 P. 720 - T. r A SOC and nv the
Supreme Court of the State of Mis-
souri, re Cantwell. 1l9 Mo. 245, IS :.
W. $50. 1t may not be out of place
here, also to note that the latter case
has since been affirmed by the 6
preme Court of the United StotaS anC
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.
1t would seem therefore, a natural
and proper, if 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 10 his contentious. in thai
il specifically affirmed the Utah de-
cision in Holden VS.. Hardy which
sustained the statute from which our;
is copied, and that all the courts nam
ed were adverse to tie views he I'd
vocated had resOrted to abuse of the
Justices of this and other courts. ant
to imputa,.ons of their motives.
The language quoted is tant9 mount
. to the large that this tr:hu~"' az"
the Supreme Courts IF Utah. Missouri
aud of the United States and lie jns
tees thereof who particinatad N th'
opinions UNFOLDING statutes limitine
the hours Of labor in mines. smeltnr
and other ere reduction works. were
misguided by lgno ance or base poll
teal considerations.
Taking the most charitable view
if counsel became so imb-"2 and mis-
guided bv his own ineas and cOnc'l
sions that he honestly and eroneOuSl.
conceived that we We're controlled b
ignorance or sinister motives instead
Of bv law and justice IN determinin:
constitutional or other questions. an
that these ether courts and Judge
and the members Of the 'epislAfUr
and Governor were guilty Ct the accu
satiOn he made because they and w
failed to follow the theories he az
vocpted. and that his opinions ongl
70 outweigh and turn the scale'again:
the decisions Of the four courts nan
e. including the highest in the Ian
with nineteen justices concurrin
nevertheleI - was entirely inappr
pirate 10 make the sta cement in brie
If he really believed or knew
facts to sustain the charge he mao
he ought to have been aware that TT
purpose Of such docum ent is to e
tighten the court in regarda<to tt
controlling facts and the law. al
convince by argumc 1t. I'D not