Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1906-04-06
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
STATE OF NEVADA
In the matter of Alfred Chartz, ESD,
for Contempt
DECISION

In the matter of Alfred chartz, ESD,
for Contempt
DECISION
Respondent was commanded ID
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 a Writ of habeas Corpus filed in
this court a petition Tor rehearing IL
which he made use of the followin {
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
.frong, and written by men who have
never performed manual labor. or 0y
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 co.n-
Nit a contempt of court; and. further
that if the Language was by the court
deemed TO be objectionable. he apou-
eiaea fo1 its use and asked that the
So e he 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 simil 1T
import which this court did not take
cognizance of, attributing its We 20
over zealousness upon the part OF
counsel. but which was of such NJ
ture that the Attorney General in his
reply brief referred to as lnslnuat-
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 irnicination of cnnsel."
Also the case and its condition ut
the time the Objectionable Language
was used. should be taken into consid-
Mation The proceeding, in which
mis- petition was filed, had been
brought to test the pnstitutionality
of a section of an Act of the Legisla
ture limiting labor to eight hours per
day in smelters and other ore redic-
ton works. except in cases of emer-
S"ntN WutiS lllt VI piOptils IS IL
imminant danger. Stat. 1908 p. g..
This Act had passed the Legislature
almost unanimously and had receiv-
ed the Governors approval. At the
time of filing the petition, respond n
was aware that the court has nre
vlously sustained the validity Of til :
enactment as limiting the hours tf
labor in underground mines, Re
Boyce, 81 New. 327, IS P. l., IS L. r
A. A., and in mills for the reduction
of ores, Re Kair IS New. 80 P. 4S4
and that similar statutes had been up
held by the Supreme Court Of Utai
and the Supreme Court of the Unitei
States in the cases of State " Holden
ii Utah II and So, As P. 757 and 11O5
81 L. r. A. 1N3 and los: Holden ,
Hardy 1863 U. S. 366. Is Sup. Ct. 383
Short Mining Company. 20 Utah, 20
81 P. 100 As l.. R. A. 6n2 and nv 'h'
Supreme Court Of the State Of Mis-
souri, re Cantwell, LA Mo. 245, IS :
W. 500. 1t may not be out of pla
here, also to note that the latter case
has since been affirmed by the s
preme Court of the United States. an
more recently the latter tribunal, al
herring to its opinion therein and, il
the Utah cases. has refused to inter
fere with the decisions, of this CO.
in re Kair. =. - s.: IS t,,.se.g
It would seem therefore, a tnafura
and proper, if not necessary de
ductfon from the language In question
when taken in connection with tn,
law OF the cases as enunciated b.
this and other courts. that counsel
finding that the opinion of the highes
court in the land was adverse insteaI
CT favorable to has contentious. in tina
it specifically affirmed the Utah de
cisiCn 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 ad
vocated. had rescrted to abuse OF tn,
Justices Of this and other courts. ant
to imputa Ions of their motives
The language quoted is tantamoun
to the charge that this tribunal ant
the Supreme Courts of Utah. Missouri
and of the United States and inc Jus
tees thereof who participated in tn
Opiniors uphOldipg statutes limitins
the hours Of labor In mines; snielter
and other Gre reduction works were
misguided by tgno ance Or base poll
teal considerations, $ - %
Taking the most charitable view
if counsel became so imbued and mis-
guided by his own ideas and cOnclu
sions, that he honestly and eroneousi.
conceived that we were controlled b.
ignorance or sinister motives fnsteat
Of by law and Justice in determinin,
constitutional or other questions. ant
that these other courts srd i"de"
and the members of the legislature
and Governor were guilty of the accu
sation he made. because they and "
failed to follow the theories he az
vocated. and that HIS opinions cugh
to outweigh and turn the scale agains
the decisions of the four courts nan
eel including the highest in the Ian
with nineteen justices concurrn'
nevertheless it was entirely inappr
pirate to maize the statement in brie
II he really believed or knew