Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1906-04-14
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
STATE OF. NEVADA A.
In the matter of Aires Charsz, ESD,
for Contempt
DECISION

Respondent was commanded ID
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 fled 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 al
..rong. and written by men who have
never performed manual labor. or by
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 con-
nit a contempt of court; and. further
that if the language was by the court
deemed TO be cbjectionaDie, he apoh-
gle, scl its 20 o0i asked : 1t the
sar be stricken from the petition.
In considering the foregoins state
ment il 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, attributing its We 70
over Zealousness upon the part Oh
counsel. but which was Of such n
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
were being 'impelled or controlled by
some mythical political influence 'r
fear, which exists only in the Dvro-
technc iui oination Of cnnsel."
Also. the case and its condition ut
the time the Objectionable Language
was used. should be taken into consid
Grafton. The proceeding, in which
Us petition was filed, had been
brought to test the ,nstitutioAality
Of a 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 eme1-
gency where life or property is in
imminant danger. Stat. 1903, p. 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 ho7 0~e-
vlously sustained the validity of tn :
enactment as limiting the hours tf
labor in underground mines, Re
Boyce, q New. 327, Is P. l., Go L. R.
A Al, and in mills for the reduction
of ores, Re Kair % New. 80 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 Il and Sc, as P. 757 and 11o5,
81 l.. R. A. 1O3 and 1913: Holden V
Hardy 169 U. S. 366. Is Sup. Ct. 3S3
Short V. Mining Company, 20 Utah, 20,
81 p. 100, As L. r. a. 603 and nv the
Supreme Court of the State of Mis-
souri, re Cantwell, l79 Mo. 245, ~ s
W. 500. It 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. 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 &C.
in re Kair. 1855
1t would seem therefore, natural
and proper, II not necessary de-
duction from the language in question,
when taken in connection with the
law of the cases as enunciated by
this and other courts. that counsel
finding that the opinion of the highest
court in the and was adverse instead
Of favorable TO his coptertionr in that
II specifically affirmed the Utah do
cisiCn in Holden VS.. Hardy which
sustained the statute from which ours
is COPIED, and that all the courts nam
ed we're adverse to tie views he ID
voca+eh |aa rosorted to abuse of the
Justices of this and other courts. and
to imputa, .ons of their motives. =
The language quoted is tantanCurt
t. tie charge that this trihi'-"' o. i
ITO H--~ra7~a Courts Of Itch. Missrur
pnG ,f the Tnjtoa Statn~ "nd 10 ir,e
tees thereof who particiuatad in thf
opinions UNFOLDING statutes limiting
the hours Ct lator in mines. smelterT
and other ere reduction works were
misguided bv 1eno ance CT base poll
teal considerations.
Taking the most charitable view
if counsel hecame so imbued and mis-
g1ided by his own ideas and conc'u
siOns that he honestly and ercn oo"s'N
conceived that we were controlled BY
ignorance or sinister motives instead
of bv law and justice n determinlns
constitutional or Other Questions an'
that these other con is end iud9o:
snd tba members of the 'oofs'a tl7"r
and Governor were guilty Ct the accu
sation he made because they and w
failed to follow the theories he &c
voceted. and that his opinions ough
n on.w nigh and turn the scale agains
the dec ms Of tie four courts nan
e. including the highest in tne Ian
with nineteen justices concurrins
nevertheless it was entirely inappr'
priote to maize the cta' eu'ent in brie
If he really believed or knew
facts to sustain the charge be mad
he ought to have been aware ttat tn
purpose Of such docum emit is to e.
tighten the court in regard TO tn
controlling facts end the law. an