Publication information
view printer-friendly version
Source: St. Paul Globe
Source type: newspaper
Document type: article
Document title: “Buderus Is Out”
Author(s): anonymous
City of publication: St. Paul, Minnesota
Date of publication: 17 November 1901
Volume number: 24
Issue number: 321
Pagination: 6

“Buderus Is Out.” St. Paul Globe 17 Nov. 1901 v24n321: p. 6.
full text
William C. Buderus; McKinley assassination (sympathizers); Ethan A. Hitchcock (public statements); McKinley assassination (personal response: criticism).
Named persons
William C. Buderus; Ethan A. Hitchcock; William McKinley.


Buderus Is Out


Mr. Buderus Pleaded Extenuating Circumstances, Expressed Regret and
Claimed His Language Was Misconstrued

     WASHINGTON, Nov. 16.—Secretary Hitchcock has disbarred William C. Buderus, an attorney of Sturgis, S. D., from practicing before the interior department because of criticisms alleged to have been made by the latter on the late President McKinley. The letter written by Secretary Hitchcock, in which this action is taken, explains the department’s proceeding and gives the reason for it. It reads in part as follows:
     “Under date of Oct. 11, 1901, copies of certain papers on file in the department were forwarded to you wherein you were charged with having expressed your satisfaction and gratification at the recent national calamity resulting in the death of our late president, William McKinley, at a time when the whole country was plunged in grief, and was deploring the dastardly and inhumanly murderous attack on the president by making use of the following language: ‘I am glad of it, and I hope he will die, as there will be one more tyrant less.’
     “You were at the same time cited to show cause within thirty days from that date why you should not be disbarred from practice by reason of your language as above set forth.

Pleaded Extenuating Circumstances.

     “In reply you do not deny using such language substantially as charged, but contend that a different construction might be placed on the same if the witnesses thereto were subjected to cross-examination, alleging that the remarks used by you were due to thoughtlessness and excitability, and immediately regretted; moreover, that you have already suffered sufficiently through local influences, all of which should be considered in extenuation of your offense.
     “This explanation is not satisfactory, and cannot be accepted in mitigation or in condonation of the cruel language used by you on the occasion in question, and no good reason is advanced why a prohibitory order should not be issued in your case.
     “In view of your reprehensible conduct in the premises, it is ordered that you no longer be recognized as attorney or agent in the prosecution of any claim or other matter before the department or any of its bureaus.”



top of page