Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1906-04-27
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
STATE OF NEVADA
In the matter of Alfred Chartz, ECO,
for Contempt

Respondent was commanded to
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 a 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
wrong, 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
icus: disayowed any intention to con-
nit contempt of court; and. further
that if the language was by the court
deemed to be 90. sctionable. he apoh-
gized fol its rsc and 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
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 10
over zealousness upon the part OF
counsel, but which was OF such n
ture that the Attorney General in his
reply urief referred to i as insinuat-
ing that the Legislature in enactirig
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
This petition was filed, had been
brought to test the 'nstitutionality
Of section of an Act of the Legisla-
ture limiting labor to eight hours per
day in smelters and 3,her ore reduc-
tion works, except in cases of emer-
gency where life or property is in
imminant danger. Sat. 1908, .. 80.
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 had pre-
vlously sustained the validity of tn 3
enactment as limiting the hours ~
labor in underground mines, Re
Boyce, 81 New. 327, IS P. l., 65 l.. r.
A. At, and in mills for the reduction
Of ores, Re Kair % New. 80 P. 46l,
and that similar statutes had been up
held by the Supreme Court of Utah
and the Supreme Court of the Unitei
States in the cases of State " Holden,
IA Utah II and SO, As P. 757 and HOS,
81 L. r. A. 103 and 10S: Holden v
Hardy 1863 U. S. $3.50. 1S Sup. Ct. 1888;
Short V. Mining Company, ~ Utah, 20
81 P. 720, 45 l.. r. A.. 6O3. and nv the
Supreme Court of the State of Mis-
souri, re Cantwell, l79 Mo- 245, ~ s.
w. 500. It 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, 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 Col
in re Kair.
it would seem therefore a 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 enunciated by
this and other courts. that counsel.
finding that the opinion of the highest
court in the land was adverse instead
of favorable to his contentious. in that
it specifically affirmed the Utah de-
cision in Holden VS.. Hardy which
sustained the statute from which ours
is copied, and that all the courts nam
ed were adverse to tie views he ad
vocated had resorted to abuse of the
Justices of this and other courts. and
to imputa, .ons of their motives.
The language quoted is tantamount
to the Charge that this tribunal and
the Supreme Courts of Utah. Missouri
and of the United states and tne Jus
tees thereof who participated in the
opinions upholding statutes limiting
the hours Of labor in mines, smelters
and other ore reduction works. were
misguided by ignol ance OF base poll
ucal considerations.
Taking the most charitable view
if counsel became so inb:cc6 and mis-
guided by his own IDEAS and conclu
sions that he honestly and eroneously
conceived that we were controlled by
ignorance or sinister motives lnStedc
of by law and justice in determining
constitutional or other questions, anc
that these other courts and judges
and the members of the legislature
and Governor were guilty Of the accl
sation he made because they and w
failed to follow the theories he ad
yocated, and that his opinions ough
to outweigh and turn the scale agains
the decisions of the four courts nam
ell including the highest in the LAM
with nineteen justices concurrine
nevertheleaG e was entirely inapprt
pirate to make the statement in brie1
If he really believed or knew o
facts to sustain the charge he mad
he ought to have been aware that tn
purpose of such a document is to er
tighten the court in regard to tn
IL tALa Ia