Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1906-04-07
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
STATE OF NEVADA
In the matter of Aires Chartz, Esq,
for Contempt
DECISION

show cause Whw he should not he
adjudged guilty Of contempt for hay
ing. as an attorney Of record in the
matter Of the application OF Peter kalr
for a Writ of Habeas Corpus filed in
this court a petition for rehearing III
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
wrong. 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 a 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 apoh-
.ised f., its use and asked that the
same he stricken from the petition.
In considering the foregoins state
ment 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, attrihuting its Use 10
over zealousness upon the part OF
counsel. but which was Of such n
ture that the Attorney General in his
reply orief 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 "
fear. which exists only in the DyrO-
technic Imagination Of crnsel.''
Also. the case and its condition ut
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 nnstitutionality
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-
gency where life or property is in
imminant danger. Stat. 1908, D. 81.
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 had nro-
viously sustained the validity of tn :
enactment as limiting the hours #
labor in underground mines, Re
Boyce, q New. 327, rs P. l., So L. r.
A. A, 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 Utan
And the Supreme Court of the United
states in the cases of State v. Holden,
IA Utah II and Sc, As P. 757 and 1105.
81 L. R. A. 103 and los; Holden v
Hardy 1863 U. S. 366. IS Sup. Ct. 1888;
Short V. Mining Company. 80 Utah. 20
81 P. 72O, As L. r. A. 6O3. and by the
Supreme Court Of the State Of Mis-
souri, re Cantwell. l79 Mo- PAS. rs :.
". $50. 1t NAV not be out of pla> 20
here. also to note that the latter case
has since been affirmed by the g
preme Court of the United States. and
more recently the latter tribunal. al.
herring to its opinion therein aud in
the Utah cases. has refused to inter
fere with the decisions of this CO.
in re Kair
II would seem therefore, a natural
and proper. if not a necessary de.
duction from the language in preston
when taken in connection with the
law of the cases as enunciated BY
this anh other courts. that counsel
finding that the opinion of the highest
court in the land was adverse instead
IF favorable TO bis contentious. in that
il specifically affirmed the Utah de-
cision in Holden VS.. Hardy which
sustained the statute from which ours
is copied. and that all the courts nam
ed were adverse to tie views he ad
vocated. bad resorted to abuse of the
Justices of this and other courts. and
to imputa Ions of their motives.
The language quoted is tsntamCunt
to the charge that this tr'bu~o1 a-d
the Supreme Courts of Utah. Missouri
and of the United States and lie Tvs
tees thereof who participated in the
opinions UNFOLDING statutes limiting
the hours Ct labor in mines. smelters
and other ore reduction works. were
misguided bv 'gno ance CT base poll
teal considerations.
Taking the most charitable Wow
if counsel became so imbued and mis-
guided by his own ideas and cnnc'u
sions that he honestly and enormously
conceived that we were controlled b.
ignorance or sinister motives instead
of bv law and justice in determining
constitutional or other questions. .ant
that these other courts and i"does
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 cugh
to outweigh and turn the scale agains
the decisions Of the four courts nan
e' including the highest in the Ian
with nineteen justices concurrins
nevertheless it was entirely inappr'
pirate to make tho statement in brie
If he really believed or knew c
facts TO sustain the charge he mad
he ought to have been aware that tn
purpose of such a document is to el
tighten the court in regard to tn
controlling facts and the law. an
convince by argument and not