Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1906-04-04
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
STATE OF NEVADA

In the matter Of Alfred chartz, Esq,
for Contempt
DECISION
Respondent was commanded to
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 Writ of Habeas Corpus filed in
this court petition for rehearing IL
which he made use of the following
statement:
I'm 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
wrong, 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 COM
NIT a contempt Of court; and. further
that if the Language was by the court
deemed to be Objectionable. he apoli-
eized fol its use ard asked that the
So Q he slrich en- from the petition.
In considering the foregoins state
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 similar
import which this court did not take
cognizance of, atuibuting its Use 10
over ZealOusness upon the part OF
counsel. but which was of such NJ
ture that the Attorney General in his
reply prief referred to / as insinuat-
ing that the Legislature in enactipg
and this court in sustaining the law
were being fmpelled 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
this petition was filed, had been
brought to test the CDnstitutionaiity
of section of an Act of the Legisla-
ture limiting labor to eight hours per
day in smelters and other ore reduc-
ton works. except in cases of emer-
sency where life or property is in
imminant danger. Stat. 1908, p. 81.
This Act had passed the Legislature
almost unanimously and had receiv-
ed the Governors approval At the
time Of fling the petition, respond nj
was aware that the court had n'e
vlously sustained the validity Of tn >
enactment as limiting the hours If
labor in underground mines, Re
Boyce, q New. 327, Is P. l., 65 l.. r.
A. Al, and in mills for the reduction
of ores, Re Kair % New. so P 464,
and that similar statutes had been up.
held by the Supreme Court of Utah
and the Supreme Court of the Unitei
States in the cases of State v. Holden
IA Utah II and SO, As P. 757 and 1105
81 l.. R. A. 103 and 10S; Holden '
,IaAa5y, leo U. s 366. IS Sup. Ct 1888
Snort V. Mining CON pany. 20 Utah, 20
81 p. 720. As L. ! A.. 6A2 and bv The
Supreme Court of the State of Mis-
souri, re Cantwell, l19 Mo. PAS, 70 S
W. $50. 1t may not be cut of place
here, also to note that the latter case
has since been affirmed by the s.
creme Court Of the United States, anC
more recently the latter tribunal, al
herring to its opinion therein and il
the Utah cases. has refused to inter
tere with the decisions of this Co.
in re Kair.
1t would seem therefore. a natura
and proper, if not a necessary de
auction from the language in question
when taken in connection with the
law Of the cases as enuEciated b.
this and other courts, that counsel
finding that the opinion of the highes
court in the land was adverse insteat
IF favorable 10 his contentious. in tina
it pecifcally 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 ad
vocated. bad resorted to abuse of thf
Justices of this and other courts. an(
to imputa,.ons of their motives
The language quoted is tanta noun
to the charge that this tribunal emf
the Sunrere Courts of Utah, Missouri
and of the United States and lie JUS
tfces thereof who participated in tn
opinions upholding statutes limitin:
the hours Of labor in mines. smeltert
and other ere reduction works, were
misguided by lgno ance or base poll
teal considerations.
Taking tfe most charitable view
if counsel became so imbued and mis-
guided by his own ideas and conc'n
sicns that he honestly and eroneousl,
conceived that we were controlled b,
ignorance or sinister motives instea'
Of by law and justice IN determining
constitutional or other questions. AM
that these other courts and judge
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 ougf
to on, weigh and turn the scale again!
the decisions Of tie four courts nan
ed including the highest in the Ian
with nineteen justices concurrin
nevertheless it was entirely inappr
pirate to r1al-e the statement in brie
r. he really believed or knew {
facts. to sustain the charge he mad