Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1906-04-15
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
STATE OF NEVADA
In the matter of Alfred Chartz, Esq,
for .cpnfeneptY
~ t.d3actsioNs 20 s1(fs

matter Of the application of Peter Kar
for 3 Writ Of Habeas Corpus fled in
this court petition for rehearing in
S s5a'eme as>:ps'e slfTs' inc 3e..2S' 81
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
.yrong, 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 "a. brief and made an
extended address To the EpWt in
which he toola 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
q Med to be oDlecu0naoia. ne apoil-
e a--sssolI the PETITION .
In considering the foregoins state
ment it is proper to note that in the
briefs filed by Respondent upon -he
hearing ofzethe= ease nzrtn f1rst@sn &
stance, he used language Of similar
import which this court did not ia te
over zealousness upon the part OF
counsel. but which was of such IT.
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
we're being ''impelled or controlled by
some mythical political influence 'r,
fear. which exists emily in the nvl'o-
+achnic ii7riuinatiGn Of cunSnl -
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
ot a section of an Act OF the LegsIa-
ture limiting labor 10 eight hours per
day In sailelterki Ind other ore reduc-
ton works e2caept IL ,ca2sese ses0aSsl
gencv where life or property is in
imminant danger Stat. 1903. p. 60.
This Act had passed the Legislature
almost unanimously and had receiv-
ss.ae ed the Governors approval = a tt sstffe
time of filing the petition, respond NJ
was aware that the ycorrrF Rsd- pre-
viously sustained the VALIDITY Of IA 5
enactment as limiting the hours #
~, labor p in underground mines. Re
! 8oyca = New. 327, rs Pei, 65 L. R.
80 A At and in mills for the reduction
sof ores, Re 7Kair % New. 80 P. 46t..
!. and that, similsr 70 statutes, had .heen up-l
held by the Supreme Court of Utan n.
. anffhe Supreme Court tFithez Unitea
~ States in, the cases Of Statesy. Holden,
II Utah II and Sc, as P. 757 and 11o5.
~ II p A. :1os End 1"s:'fro,den v
Hardy 1853 US, :GS, is, Sup ct. $780,:
sStort V. ,~,.n!ng Co~pany e ,T-~h 20:
., -"h 'f5 i" 4. "a, fns. and bv ne
Supremay Court of rthe. State,of Mis-,
fogri re, Gantwell, rs. Mo. 245, Is $,
W. $50. It may not Be out of pIa q
here: also tn. note thstthe latter cas-
has since been affirmed by the g
: rirert1e-.Ccss1.A Of fba limited 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. 81
1t would seeml tlfereforef,al natural
and proper if rot a. nncesaarvt de-
3a7e' ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS engna aaastiG
whan takon in connection with the
law Of the rasos as enurc;ated by
this end other courts, that counsel.
finding tffiS ffe THE offrspn.t,fs the highest
cCu~t in the and was adverse i1ste"d
IF favCrohi &c h c contentious in tnat
il specifically affirmed the Utah de-
cisicn in Holden We. Hardy, which
eueteinaG the statute from which onrs
Is copied. I'D that al tho court nam
cd were adverse to tie views he adj
vocated. had resorted to abusa. OF the
Justices OF this and ether courts and
to imputa, .ons Of their motives.
The lanr-.age cr.staI &c tartoroH1l72t
t. the urge hat this tril.--~~' o''|
no Sunror1a Courts of Utah. MissOur
ana If he United States and 10 Jus
tees thereof who participated :" w.
gcbnIrs lphpldisg, statutes, limiting
Eta4 hours e aalorFn fmh>as snelser%
End nthe~ lore redlrtionE works. were
r,is a,i7ed lhv tgnoiance CT base spoli'
teal Considerations. I,
Tahi~r TIE TOst charitHhle Wow
If counsel became so in1h'-0' an1 mis-
enide6 bv his own i,.o-i., ord ronc'r
siops! thst he honestly and eroneons'7
ocpcaivedlthat we wore controlled nv
RIoranfelnf Sinister motives instead
ff31v law snd iuet'ca r deternini7e
constitutional or other oueetiarF a"f
that these other COW is end i'd@os
End she morcher= IF +ho 'ors@'''''rf
and Governor Were guilty sfrtie ncc'
sation he made oecsusa II ey and y
fsile. to follow fhe THEORIES he al
vocetnd. and that his 6pYntorrs To'' al
to outweigh and t"rn tho scale agains
the decisions If the four courts nan
~ e. including the highest in the Ian
with nineteen iucticos concnrrins
neverthele-3 :. was entirely inappr'
pirate Tor ,ratefteA stat99weat in brie
L Re reaiit believed HrF tnew {
facts to sustain the charge lie mad
he ought to have been aware that m
purpose Of such a dccunen is TO n'
tighten tho corr in rN"ard - tn
ccn.~cllinc facts end TIE law an
convince BIZ argn-n r, - not
abu-o and Wifi anil that this co."
l. MT andnwed with ncNar u h.