The Rules Of Practice For The Supreme And District Courts Of New Mexico, in effect at the time of McComas’ arrival, mandated that any attorney relocating to New Mexico Territory from another State or Territory, and wishing to resume practice, had first to be admitted to the New Mexico Territorial Bar. In a case such as that of McComas, where the applicant had already been practicing for at least three years in the State or Territory from which he had relocated, admission to the New Mexico Territorial Bar would have been a relatively simple, but nonetheless very formal, procedure.
The applicant would have had to apply for admission to the New Mexico Territorial Bar at one of the Judicial District Courts of the Territory, where he would have to appear before the Judge of that Court, in open session. He was required to supply the Court with proof of citizenship and “good moral character”, together with a letter of recommendation written by “one of the judges of the highest court of law of the state or territory from which [he] had come.” On acceptance by the Court, he would then sign the roll and swear the required oath. Only then would the applicant be authorized to practice law in New Mexico Territory.¹⁰¹
In Volume 2 of New Mexico Reports (Records of the Supreme Court of New Mexico Territory) is found a list of all those attorneys who had practiced under the New Mexico Territorial Supreme Court up to but not including the year 1882.¹⁰² Hamilton C. McComas’ name is not on this list, unlike that of his cousin Charles C. McComas who was practicing in partnership with Thomas B. Catron at Albuquerque.
Volume 3 of New Mexico Reports contains a similar list, recording the names of all those attorneys admitted to the New Mexico Territorial Bar between the years 1846 and 1887; it does include the name of H. L. [sic] McComas, proof that his admission occurred no earlier than 1882.¹⁰³ An item in the New Southwest and Grant County Herald of April 22, 1882 states that “attorneys Sloan and MacComas [sic] have formed a law co partnership.” This partnership between McComas and Andrew Sloan marks the commencement of McComas’ time as a practicing attorney in New Mexico Territory.
McComas’ return to public practice is most often associated with the well-documented dispute over the boundaries of the “Oasis” and “Last Chance” mines in the Virginia Mining District. The case developed after one of the mines – the “Last Chance” – was located, for the most part, directly overlaying the pre-existing location for the “Oasis.” Both locations had originally been made by Thomas Dunn.¹⁰⁴
The sequence of events in the case – more correctly known as “Cause No. 626 in Equity, Oscar Williams et al v. Thomas Dunn et al” – is described in detail by Myres who obtained the information from the Court Register and Cost Book for the years 1873-1884, at the time located at Grant County District Court in Silver City.¹⁰⁵
That McComas was involved in the case, as counsel for the Defendants with John D. Bail, is not disputed, but to claim that McComas played a major role in the “successful defense” of Dunn et al, and that he and Bail “won the law suit handily” is somewhat of an overstatement. Although Oscar Williams himself says that “in the public eye Judge McComas was the star figure for the defendants”,* the case never came to full trial. Myres writes that The Court Register and Cost Book records that the case was dismissed, in favor of the Defendants, on April 23, 1883, the month after the death of McComas. He also states that “the case of Oscar Williams v. Thomas Dunn never came to trial, chiefly because the mine [Oasis] had proved unproductive during the pendency of the suit.”
*Quotations from O.W. Williams. Williams and McComas were friends,
——————
In the following section we will refer to a further set of documents which not only reinforce the link between McComas and Price, but which will also correct another myth – the assertion that McComas was acting as legal representative for the Pyramid Gold and Silver Mining and Reduction Company at the time of his death. Making this correction will also answer the question of what it was that led him into making that fateful journey to the Virginia Mining District, and why that journey was of such urgency.
©2007-2025 Jim & Erica Parson
REFERENCES FOR THIS INSTALLMENT
¹⁰¹Rules Of Practice And Amendments To Rules Of Practice For The Supreme And District Courts Of New Mexico. Adopted by the Supreme Court since the January Term 1872. Santa Fe: Manderfield & Tucker (1872).
It was for this same reason, that is, that he had not been admitted to the New Mexico Territorial Bar, that John Boyle could not represent the interests of the Shakespeare Gold and Silver Mining and Milling Company in New Mexico; hence the use of local Silver City attorneys Ginn and Bell by that company in the December 1880 suit of J. B. and T. B. Price vs. Shakespeare Gold and Silver Mining and Milling Company.
¹⁰²Gildersleeve, Charles H. Esq., Reporter. (1883) New Mexico Reports. Volume 2. Copy of the list of attorneys found in this publication courtesy of the New Mexico Supreme Court Law Library, 237 Don Gaspar, Santa Fe, NM 87501. Although listed as practicing in the Supreme Court of the Territory of New Mexico, this description also includes all attorneys admitted to the New Mexico Territorial Bar and therefore eligible to practice within the Territory.
¹⁰³Copy of the list of attorneys courtesy of the New Mexico Supreme Court Law Library as above.
¹⁰⁴For a much more detailed account see Myres (1968), pages 193-201 and 327-330.
¹⁰⁵These records are presently located at the New Mexico State Records Center and Archives in Santa Fe.
Leave a Reply