Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1906-04-18
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
STATE OF NEVADA
In the matter of Alfred Chartz, ESQ.,,
for Contempt
DECISION

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 a 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
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
ious: disavowed any intention to COM
nit contempt of court; and. further
that if the language was by the court
deemed 10 be objectionable he apoll-
et.nd fol Is $50 an1 ae'Iel wat the
sac he stricken from the petition.
In considering the foregoins stale
ment II 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 simil IT
import which this court did not take
cognizance Of. attributing its ~ge 20
over zealousness upon the part OF
counsel, but which was Of such ~
ture that the Attorney General in his
reply brief referred to i as insinuat
ing that the Legislature in enactin;g
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 information of cunsel."
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 rnstitutionality
of a section of. an Act of the Legisla
ture limiting labor to eight hours pei
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. So
This Act had passed the Legislature
almost unanimously and had receiv.
ed the Governors approval. At the
time Of filing the petition, respond n,
was aware that the court had pre-
vlously sustained the validity of tn $
enactment as limiting the hours I;
labor in underground mines. Re
Boyce, q New. 327, rs P. l., 65 L. R
A. Az and in mills for the reduction
OF ores, Re Kair % New. so P. Ash
and that similar statutes had been Up
held by the Supreme Court of Utar
and the Supreme Court of the United
States in the cases of State V. Holden
i Utah II and Sc, as P. 757 and 1105
81 L. R. a. 1913 and los; Holden v
Hardy 1863 U. S. 366, Is Sup. Ct 3S3
Short V. Mining Company. - Utah. 20
5. P. 72O, - L. r A. COP and hv tht
Supreme Court of the State of Mis-
souri, re Cantwell, li9 Mo- 245, Is 5
". 500. 1t may not be out of place
here, also to note that the latter case
has since been affirmed by the 8
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 &C
in re Kair
It would seem therefore. a natura
and proper, if not a necessary de
dUction from the language in question
when taken in connection with the
= law Of the cases as enur ciated by
this and other courts. that counsel
finding that the opinion of the highes
court in the and was adverse insteaf
e., :. = Y
II specifically affirmed the Utah de
osion in Holden VS.. Hardy. which
sustained the statute from which Cur
is COPIED. md that ell tie courts nam
ed were adverse to tie views he al
vocated. had rescrted to abuse of the
Justices of this and other courts. an
80 imputa..ons Of their motives.
The lanFIaga quoted is tantamCun
u the large that this tr'hr'>"' 80
tfn S-l~reme Courts of Utah MissCuC
and Of the United States and lie JUS
tees thereof who particiDatal IN n
opinions upholdirg statutes LIMITING
the hours & labor in mines. smelter
end other ere reduction works wer'
misguided by 1gno ance CT base poll
teal considerations.
-. s>-Tal-i. : tie most charitable view
I if counsel became SO lnb-o- and mis-
guided by his own lucas and conc'u
sons that he honestly and erCneGUsi
conceived that we were controlled D
ignorance CT sinister motives instea
Ct bv law and justice n determining
constitutional or other questions, an
that these other cOu is and judge
and the members Of the 1egislatrr
and Governor were guilty Ct the acct
sation he made because they and W
failed to follow the theories he az
voceted, and that his opinions cugf
70 outweigh and turn tho scale again!
the decisions CT tie four courts mar
e. including the highest in the Ian
With nineteen justices concurrin
reverthele .. was entirely inappr
prate to make the stat "ment in brie
If he really believed CT knew
facts to sustain the charge be mao
he ought to have been aware that II
cf c1icb q document is To q