Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1906-04-08
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
STATE OF NEVADA
In the matter of Alfred Chartz, ESD,
for Contempt
DECISION

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 fiabeas Corpus filed in .
this court a petition for rehearing il. /
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 all
:Irong, 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 I
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 apou-
siled FOL its use and asked that the
sa~e ke sIrichen from the petition.
In considering the foregoins, state
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 use %
over zealousness upon the part oil
counsel. but which was Of such n
ture that the Attorney General in his
reply Drief referred to as insinuat-
ing that the Legislature in enactin;5
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-
tpchnic Imagination of cunsel.'
Also. the case and its condition at
the time the objectionable Language
was used. should be taken into consld-
Grafton The proceeding, in viii IN
this petition was filed, had been
brought to test the rnstitutionalty
Of a section of an Act OF the Leglsla-
ture limiting labor TO eight hours per
day in smelters and other ore redtc-
ton works, except in cases of emer-
gency where life or property is in
imminant danger. Stat. 1908, p. 80.
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 Dre
vlously sustained the validity of tn :
enactment as limiting the hours 81
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. 46i
and that similar statutes had been up
held by the Supreme Court of Utat
and the Supreme Court of the Unitel
States in the cases of State V. Holden
IA Utah II and Sc, as P. 757 and 1105
81 L. R. A. 1O3 and 10S Holden ,
Hardy 1863 U. S. 366, Is Sup. Ct 3S3
Short v. Mining Company 80 Utah, &c
81 P 100, As L. r. A. 6O3 and by tn
Supreme Court of the State of Mis-
souri, re Cantwell, l79 Mo. 245, Is :
". $50. It may not be out of place
here, also to note that the latter ca
has since been affirmed by the S.
preme Court of the United States. an
more recently the latter tribunal, al
herring to it's 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 necessary de
duction 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 instea
Of favorable to his contentious. in tina
it specifically afYirmedi the Utah dc
cision in Holden VS.. Hardy. which
sustained the statute from which our
=; ;oI hot fy~o aa
ed were adverse to tie views he ad
vocated had resorted to abuse of TIN
Justices of this and other courts, AM
to imputa, Ions of their motives
The language quoted is tantampun
tn the charge that this tr;hu-"' 49,
the Supreme Courts Of Utah Missoul
and of the United States and Tile Jn
tees thereof who participated in tn
opinions UNFOLDING statutes limitin'
the hours CT labor in mines. smelter
and other ore reduction works. wer
misguided by ignorance or base pot
teal Considerations =
S,Takfhc the most charfta Vie 2 view
ii counsel bscam4 So imbued ana mis-
Guided by his own Ideas and comets
sions that he honestly and eroneousl
conceived that we we're controlled b
ignorance or sinister motives instea
of bv law and justice in determinin
Constitutional sor other questions q n
tKat these other courts and judge
snd the members of the 'e@'siatrr
and Governor were guilty OF the acct
sation he made because they and "
failed to follow the theories he a.
vocated, and that his opinions ougl
to outweigh and turn the scale again
the decisions Of the four courts mar
ell including the highest in the Ian
with nineteen justices ..eoncurrin
nevertheless it was entirely inappy
pirate to make tho. sta. ement in brit
If he really believed or knew
facts to sustain the chargeMhe MAJ
he ought to have been aware that Il
purpose of such a document is to e
tighten the court in regard TO Il