Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1906-04-21
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
STATE OF NEVADA
In the matter Of Alfred Chartz, Esq,
for Contempt
DECISION

Respondent was commander ID /
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 a Writ of Habeas Corpus filed in
this court petition for rehearing IL
which he made use of the following
statement:
an my opinion, the decisions favcr- !
ing the power of the State to limit the
hours of labor, on the ground of the
police power Of the State are al !
Srong, 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 f.
ions: disavowed any intention to COM
nit contempt Of court; and. further
that if the language was by the court
deemed to be objectionable. he apoll-
gi1ed f2l IL use and asked t'rat the
same be stricken from the petition.
In considering the foregoins state
ment it is proper 10 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 taAe
cognizance Of, attributing its ~se 10
over zealousness upon the part OF
counsel. but which was OF such NJ
ture that the Attorney General in his
reply brief referred to as insinuat-
ing that the Legislature in enactins
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-
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
mis- petition was filed, had been
brought to test the onstitutionality
of a section of an Act OF the Legisia-
ture limiting labor to eight hours per
day in smelters and other ore redrc-
ton works. except in cases OF emer-
gency where life or property is in
imminant danger. Stat. 1908. p. 3d.
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 haT ore
vlously sustained the validity of tn ;
enactment as limiting the hours e
labor in underground mines. Re
Boyce, q New 327, Is P. l., 65 L. R.
A At, 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 Utah
and the Supreme Court of the Unite
States in the cases of State v. Holden
II Utah II and Sc, &c P. 757 and 1105
s. l.. R. A. 1o3 and los; Holden V
Hardy 169 U. S. $685. Is Sup. Ct 3S3;;
Short V. Mining Company. - Utah, 20
81 P. 720, Is L. T. A.. 603. and hv the
Supreme Court of the State of Mis-
souri, re Cantwel, lI9 Mo. 245, Is =
W. $50 It may not be out of pla>
here, also to note that the latter case
has since been affirmed by the s
preme Court of the United States, ant
more recently the latter tribunal, al
herring to its opinion therein and il
the Utah cases. has refused to inter
fere with the decisions of this Co
in re Kair
It would seem therefore, a natura
and proper. if not a necessary &c
duction from the language in question
when taken in connection with the
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
il specifically affirmed the Utah de
cisiCn in Holden VS.. Hardy. which
sustained the statute from which cur
is copied, end that all the courts nan
ed were adverse to tie views he ad
vocated. had resOrted to abuse of thu
Justices of this and other courts. an
to imputa Ions Of their motives.
The language quoted is tantamcun
to the Charge that this tribr""' an
the Supreme Courts of Utah. Mssoul
and of the United States and lie Ju:
tees thereof who participated in til
opinions upholding statutes limitin'
the hours Ct labor in mines. smelter
and Other ore reduction works. wer'
misguided by lgno ~ance CT base poll
teal considerations.
Taking the most charitable view
if counsel became so imb::cI and mis-
guided by his own lucas and conclu
sions that he honestly and erOneonsl
conceived that we were controlled b
ignorance or sinister motives lnSlea
Of by law and justice in determining
constitutional or other questions. an
that these other courts and Judge
and the members of the leeislafur
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 ougl
10 outweigh and turn the scale again:
the decisions Of the four courts nan
ed including the highest in the Ian
with nineteen justices concurrin
neverthele-; =. was entirely inappr
pirate to make the statement in brie
If he really believed Or knew
facts to sustain the charge he mao
he ought to have been aware that tt
purpose of such a document is to e
tighten the court in regard to tt
controlling facts and the law. al