Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1906-04-13
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
STATE OF NEVADA
In the matter CT Alfred Chartz, Esq,
for Contempt
DECISION


adjudged guilty of contempt for hay
ing. as an attorney of record in the
matter of the application of Peter Kair
for Writ OF Fabeas Corpus filed 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 0y
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: dsavowed any intention to COM
nit contempt of court; and. further
that if the language was by the court
deemed to be Objectionable. he apou-
ef,ed fnl irs use End asked tat the
sane 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 %
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 enactir3
and this court in sustaining the law
were being "impelled or controlled by
some mythical political influence u
fear. which exists only in the Dyro-
technic Imagination Of cnnse]."
Also. the case and its condition At
the time the Objectionable Language
was used. should be taken into consid
GRAFTON. The proceeding, in which
RS petition was filed, had heen
brought to test the lnstitutionality
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 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 n
was aware that the court bH1 0~c-
vlously sustained the validity Of tn :
enactment as limiting the hours #
labor in underground mines. Re
Boyce 81 New 327, IS P. l., 65 L. R.
a A.. and in mills for the reduction
of ores, Re Kair % New. 80 P. Ash
and that similar statutes had been up
held by the Supreme Court Of Titan
and the Supreme Court of the Unite1
States in the cases of State v Holden.
II Utah II and Sc. 46 P. 757 and 1105,
81 L. R. A. 103 and 13S: Holden V
Hardy 169 Z. S. 366, IS Sup. Ct. 3S3 !;
Short V. Mining Company, 90 Utah, 20
81 P. 720, IS /. r. A, 603, and by the
Supreme Court Of the State of Mis-
souri, re Cantwell. l19 Mo. 245, Is :.
W. 500. 1t NAV not be out of pla 20
here, also to note that the latter case
has since been affirmed by the 5
pren,e Court of 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 Co,
in re Kair.
1t would seem therefore, natural
and proper. if not a necessary de-
duction from the language in question
when taken in connection with the
law of the cases as enurciated by
this and other courts, that counsel
finding that the opinion of the highest
court in the land was adverse instead
~f favorable to his contentious. in that
II specifically affirmed the Utah do
cisiCn in Holden VS.. Hardy. which
sustained the statute from which ours
is copied aDd that al the cOrrt@ nam
ed were adverse to tie views he ad-
vocated had resorted to abuse of the
Justices of this and other courts. and
to imDuta ,.ons of their motives.
The language quoted is tantamcunt
to the charge that this tr:|U~~1 o''"
The S,rrer~e Courts of Utah Missouri
and of the United States and lie l"s
tices thereof who participated in the
opinicrs UNFOLDING statutes limiting
the hours Ct labor in mines. smelter7
end Cther ere reduction works. were
misguided hv leno ance CT base poll
teal considerations.
Taking tire most charitable view
if counsel became so imbued and mis-
prided nv his own ideas and conc'1
sions that he honestly and eroneo"siN
conceived that we were controlled BY
ignorance or sinister motives instead
! Of by law and justice n determining
constitutional or other questions. anf
that these other con is end Judges
end the members. of the 'oeis}atrrf
and Governor were guilty Ct the accu
saton he made because. they and W,
failed TO follow the theories he ad
vocated, and that his opinions oush
70 outweigh and turn the scale aeains
the decisions Of the four courts pam
e1 including the highest in the Ian
with nineteen justices concurrl ms
nevertheless it was entirely iraplr'
pirate to male the sta-ameR in brie
If be 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