The herald-advance. (Milbank, S.D.) 1890-1922, 1912-04-12
To the Herald Advance, Milbank. S. d., April IL, 1912

Those who listened to the
speech of George w. Egan deliv-
cred here a short time ago will
remember how Mr.. Egan at
to give the impression
that he was disbarred from prac
tice as a lawyer because of his
connection with the prosecution
of Mrs. Kaufman. The real
facts of the case was that he was
disbarred because he took from
q poor, half. witted woman over
$40, 900 in money and property
to defend her against a charge
of numbering her husband. A
guardian was appointed for this
woman and Egan was compelled
to restore every penny of the
money which had been obtained
from her.
He was disbarred for this un-
righteous thing, and not for any
connection he had with the Kauf-
man case. That after his just
disbarment, he villi6ed and at
tempted to hold up the supreme
court to ridicule and scorn,
and not until he bad made an alb,
ject and unqualified apology,
practically stating that he had
lied about the court, and with
drawing all his charges o fcorrup
ton that he had made against the
court, was he readmitted to prac-
tice.
Judge Mccoy, who was not on
the supreme bench at the time
of Egan's dis barment, but who
later became a member Of the
court and corcurred in the opin.
ion of Judge Whiting, stated his
concurrence in the following
words which may be fou nd on
page 494 of the 123d N. W. Re.
porter:
Mccoy, j. | fully concur in every
word of the opinion of my associate,
Justice Whiting. Stripping this case
of all bald assertion wholly unsupport
ed by evidence, stripping it of all the
venomous poison that has crept in on
both sides we still have standing out
in bold relief somethinglike the follow
ing: Mr.. Egan entered into a contract
with his client, OF an hours acqualnt-
ance, whereby he was to receive Sl0,-
600 for defending her against the
charge OF murder, and, whether she
a sane Or insane, it had the effect
Of relieving her of all her earthly pos
sessions, and would have left her a
penniless pauper, a fit subject for the
poorhouse, had she lived and been
cleared of the charge upon trial.
When this proceeding was being heard
before this court, he openly and boldly
asserted that Mrs. O'Grady, his client,
was guilty of murder. This was in
direct violation of his duty to his
client. He had entered into a contract
to receive $40, 900 to defend her liberty
and honor against the charge Of murd-
er. Upon being defeated in his litiga-
ton growing out Of his relations with
Mrs. O'Grady, he then entered upon a
systematic course of v~llitication of
the courts, and all who did not agree
with him, and, while we recognize to
the fullest extent the rights of iitigants
and the public in general to criticise
the decisions of the courts, yet we are
OF the opinion that the privilege of free
speech may be abused; that there is a
vast difference between honest, free
speech, honest criticism, and infamous
viliication.
While this court under a proceeding
OF this character, has no authority
to find Mr.. Egan guilty of criminal
libel, as a jury might on an indict-
ment, yet we are at liberty t. take into
consideration his moral u%ntitness. APP
pearing from his groundless accusa-
tions. While he has been loud IN his
assertions as to the courts of this state
being guided by outside influence, not
one syllable of evidence has he offered
In proof of such assertions. On the
other han d, the evidence in this case
~cOnclusively shows that he himself has
written and published article after
article tending to influence and to
interfere with judicial action in matters
then pending before the courts and in
liz lac WdS 1utIcSGcu. lIdl1N III
his last argument before this court.
he says, in substances: 81 have not
written or spok ken a word against the
integrity Of the courts of this state"
The only legitimate inference is that
his memory is sadly deficient or his
conception Of the truth very limited.
And Mi. Egan in his humble
apology to the court when seek.
ing readmission to the bar apollo
gized, as follows:
"That he is now aware that he has
not, by his conduct toward the judic-
iary of this state, at all times, recog-
nized his duty as a member Of the
profession. That he has been hasty,
inconsiderate. and unfair he admits;
nor does he undertake to excuse him
self or justify his shortcomings by re-
sort to recrimination against any tri-
bunal or individual. That he was
blinded as to his plain duty to uphold
the courts of this state he a now see.
Thu for oil ha hos I0~0 o~L I'll ha