Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1906-04-05

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
STATE OF NEVADA
In the matter of Alfred chartz, ESQ,
for Contempt
,---.s-.--... DECISION -..... .. .
Respondent was commanded to
show cause whw he should not be
adjudged guilty of contempt for hay-
ing, as an attorney of record in tue
matter of the application of Peter Kair
for Writ of habeas Corpus filed in
this court a petition for rehearing il.
which he made use Of the following
statement:
I'm my opinion the decisions favGr-
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 3y
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
fous: disavowed any intention to COM
Mit a contempt of court; and. further
that if the language was by the court
deemed To be objectionable. he apOll-
gzed FOL its 'rse and asked that the
81 be stricken from the petition.
In considering the foregoins stase-
nent 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 IT
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 A.
ture that the Attorney General in his
reply Drief referred to as insinuat-
ing that the Legislature in enactiry
and this court in sustaining the law
were being "impelled or controlled by
some mythical political influence "
fear, which exists only in the pyro-
technir ir'igination 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
this petition was filed, had been
Brought to test the onstitutionality
OF a section of an Act of the LegisIa-
ture limiting labor TO eight hours per
day in smelters and other ore reduc-
ton works. except in cases of emeI-
sency where life or property is in
imminant danger Stat. 1903, D. 80.
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 he'd re
vlously sustained the validity of tn :
enactment. as limiting the hours Il
labor in underground mines. Re
Boyce. q New 327, IS P. l., 65 L. r.
A. AZ, and in mills for the reduction
of ores, Re Kair % New. so P. 46i,
and that similar statutes had been up
held by the Supreme Court of Utah
and the Supreme Court of the United
States in the cases of State V. Holden
IA Utah II and Sc. 46 P. 757 and 11n5,
81 L. r. a. 103 and los; Holden v
Hardy 1863 L S. 366, Is Sup. Ct 3S3; ;
Short Mining Co1c pany. 20 Utah, 20
~. P~eT2O7 a. l.. ! !. 6n2 and nv the
Supreme Court of the State of Mis-
souri, re Cantwell, l19 Mo- PAS, Is :.
w $50, 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, anc
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.
1t would seem therefore, natura
and proper. if not a necessary de
Guction fror, the language in question
when taken il connection with the
law OF the cases as eEunciated b,
this and other courts, that counsel
ending that the opinion of the highes
fe3:.-'t in the land was adverse instea(
cs favorable 10 his 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 10 tie views he ad
vocated. lad resCrted to abuse of the
Justices of this and other courts. ant
to imputa, .ons of their motives.
The language quoted is tantamcun
to the charge that this tribunal anc
the Supreme Courts of Utah. Missouri
and of the United States and ,Le Jus
1cSS tneTeOl WHO participated III III
opinions unfolding statutes limitins
the hours Of labor in mines. smelter;
and other ore reduction works. were
misguided by igno ance CT 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 eroneousl,
conceived that we were controlled b.
ignorance or sinister motives instead
of by law and justice in determinin.
constitutional or other questions. AM
that these other cOu is and Judge
and the members of the Legislature
and Governor were guilty of the accu
sation he made because they and W
failed to follow the theories, he az
vOcated, and that his opinions ougE
to outweigh and turn the scale asains
the decisions of the four courts nan
Ell including the highest in the Ian
with ripntoor iuctionS pnncnrrj