Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1906-04-12
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
STATE OF NEVADA
In the matter of Alfred Chartz, Esq,
fer Contempt
DECISIGN
DECISION

In the matter of Alfred Chartz- Esq,
fer 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 the
matter of the application Of Peter Kair
for Writ OF 1aDeas 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
wrong, and written by men who have
never performed manual labor. or 3y
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; 8vOwed any intention to COM
nit a contempt of court; and. further
that if the Language was by the court
deemed to be objectionable he apoll-
ei<ed FOL its usa ard asked that the
same be stricken from the petition.
In considering the foregoins state
ment it is proper to note that in the
briefs filed by Respondent upon the
bearing 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 10
over zealousness upon the part oil
hut of clInh a
ture that the Attorney General ins his
reply brief 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-
technic imioinatiOn of ci.nsel."
Also. the case and its condition ut
the time the Objectionable Language
was used. should be taken into consid-
GRAFTON. The proceeding, in which
rs petition was filed, had been
brought to test the 1nstitutionality
OF a section of an Act of the Legisla-
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. 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 had pre-
viously sustained the validity of tn ,
enactment as limiting the hours Il
labor in underground mines, Re
Boyce, q New. 327, Is P. l., IS L. r.
A. AZ, and in mills for the reduction
of ores, Re Kair % New. so P. 464,
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 " Holden
Ia. Utah II and &c. as P 757 and 11O5
81 L. R. A. 1903 and 10S: Holden v
Hardy 1853 U. S. 366, 10 Sup. Ct 1888
Short v. Mining Company, 20 Utah, 20
81 p. 100, 10 L. +. A 6n2 and nv the
Supreme Court of the State Of Mis-
souri, re Cantwell, l19 Mo. 245, ~ $
W. $50. 1t may not be out of place
here. also to note that the latter ca Sc
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 Co
in re Kair
1t would seem therefore. a natura
and proper. II not necessary de
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
&c. a. ~1%@
of favorable to his contentious. in tina
it specifically affirmed the Utah de
cision in Holden VS.. Hardy. which
sustained the statute from which our!
is copied, and that all the courts nam
ed were adverse to tie views he I'D
vocated. had resorted to abuse of the
Justices of this and other courts, ant
to imputa,.ons of their motives.
The language quoted is tantamcun'
to the charge that this tribu~"' ar"
the Supreme Courts Of Utah. Missouri
and of the United States and ,Ae Jns
tices thereof who participated in tn
opinions upholding statutes limiting
the hours CT labor in mines. smelterz
and other ore reduction works. were
misguided by igno- ance or base poll
teal considerations.
taking the most cnaritaO!e vie"
il counsel became so imbued and mis-
guided by his own ideas and conclu
sions that he honestly and eroneousll
conceived that we were controlled b.
ignorance or sinister motives insteat
Of by law and justice in determinin,
constitutional or other questions. ant
that these other courts and judge
and the members of the 'egislatrr'
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 ough
TO outweigh and turn the scale agains
the decisions of the four courts nan
eT including the highest in the Ian
with nineteen justices concurrini
nevertheless it was entirely inappr
pirate to make the statfment in brie
II he really believed or knew {
facts to sustain the charge he mad
that RI