Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1906-04-29
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
STATE OF NEVADA
In the matter of Alfred Chartz, Esq,
for Contempt
DECISION
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 a Writ Of Habeas Corpus filed in
this court a petition for rehearng 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
wrong, and written by Anen who have
never performed manual labor, or 3y
politicians and for politics. They do
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 con-
nit contempt of court; and, fr"-her
that if the Language was by tie court
deemed to be Objectionable. he apol-
gized fol lis use and asked that the
same be stricken from the petition.
In considering the foregoins state
mpnt 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 use 70
over zealousness upon the part OF
counsel, but which was Of such AZ
ture that the Attorney General in his,
reply brief 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 DC
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
This petition was filed, had been
brought to test the nstitutionality
of a section of an Act Of the Legisla-
ture limiting labor to eight hours per
day in smelters and other ore redIc-
ton works, except in cases of eme1-
gency where life or property is in
imminant danger. Stat. 1903, 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 NJ
was aware that the court had pre-
vlously sustained the validity of tn 3
enactment as limiting the hours q
labor in underground mines, Re
Boyce, q New. 327, Is P. l., 65 L. R
A. Al, 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 Titan
and the Supreme Court of the United
States in the cases of State v. Holden
IA Utah II and Sc, 46 P. 757 and 11O5
81 L. R. +. 103 and los; Holden v
Hardy 169 U. S. 366, 18 Sup. Ct. 1888
Short Y. Mining Company, 20 Utah. 20
81 p. 100. 45 l.. r. A. sos and by the
Supreme Court of the State of Mis-
souri, re Cantwell, 179 Mo. 245, 70 )
w. 500. 1t may not be out of place
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 Cou.
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 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
it specifically affirmed the Utah de
cision i'll Holden VS.. Hardy. which
sustained the statute from which our
is copied. and that all the courts nan
ed were adverse to tie views he ad
vocated. had resorted to abuse Of tn
Justices Of this and other courts, an
to imputa IONS of their motives
The language quoted is tantamOun
TO the Charge that this tribunal an
the Supreme Courts of Utah. MissOul
and of the United States and lhe Ju
tices thereof who participated in tn
opinions upholding statutes limitint
the hours Of labor in mines smelter
and other ore reduction works. wer
misguided by lsnC ance CT base poi.
tlcal considerations.
Taking the most charitable view
if counsel became so imb-c5 and mis-
guided By his own IDEAS and conclu
conceived that we were controlled b
ignorance or sinister motives instea
of by law and justice in determinin
constitutional or other questions, an
that these other courts and Judge
and the members of the legislatur
and Governor were guilty Of the acct
saton he made because they and W
failed to follow the theories he az
vocated, and that his opinions ougf
to outweigh and turn the scale again!
the decisions of the four courts nan
e. including the highest in the Ian
with nineteen justices concurrin
nevertheio-y e was entirely inappr
pirate to make the statement in brie
If he really belieyeS 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