TEN PACES

Tombstone and Sonora  •  September 1882

Two Tombstone editors traded insults, gathered seconds and surgeons, carried Colt revolvers into Sonora, and stood ten paces apart. Then the affair collapsed over a disagreement about the guns.

A Newspaper War

Samuel Purdy and Patrick Hamilton were not strangers. Earlier in 1882 they had worked together at the Tombstone Epitaph, where another Arizona newspaper jokingly called them a strong Democratic team and wondered which man would carry the whisky. The partnership did not last. Hamilton soon left the Epitaph, and a contemporary notice reported that Purdy was again managing the paper’s “journalistic battery single handed.”

By September, Hamilton was editing the Tombstone Independent. Purdy remained with the Epitaph, and the former colleagues were exchanging personal attacks in print. A dispatch written as the confrontation unfolded said the two editors had “for some days been indulging in the most bitter personalities through their respective journals.”

The tone was not unusual for Tombstone journalism. Rival editors routinely mocked one another’s politics, honesty and competence. When the Independent declared that “facts are stubborn things,” a competitor replied that this might explain why the paper so rarely indulged in them. In September 1882, however, Hamilton attempted to carry the newspaper quarrels beyond the pressroom.

Hamilton Challenges Dunbar

On September 11, Hamilton wrote to J. O. Dunbar of the Republican. He accused Dunbar of publishing a scurrilous article and said a friend had been instructed to arrange a meeting where the matter could be settled without publicity.

“My friend, Mr. Williams, is instructed to make all necessary arrangements where we can meet and settle this matter without publicity.”

Dunbar understood the message as a challenge to fight a duel and published both the letter and his refusal. He said he stood behind his article, but would not become a lawbreaker by accepting Hamilton’s challenge. A shorter newspaper item reduced the exchange to one dry sentence: Hamilton had challenged Dunbar, and “Dunbar declines with thanks.”

The Attack on Purdy

Two days later, Hamilton published an open card addressed to Purdy in the Independent. It was not a mild correction. Hamilton accused Purdy of printing false and foul personal abuse, called him a coward, a liar and a scoundrel, and charged that he used his newspaper to attack men while avoiding personal accountability.

“Your refusal to meet me and afford redress for the foul abuse you have cast upon me, marks you as a liar and poltroon.”

Hamilton’s language plainly demanded the kind of “satisfaction” associated with a duel. Yet one immediate telegraphic report described Purdy as the challenger. Other contemporary accounts treated Hamilton as the challenged party, entitled under the code to name the type of weapon. The surviving reports do not allow the formal sequence of demand, refusal, acceptance and challenge to be reconstructed with certainty. What is clear is that, by the night of September 13, both men had agreed to go to the field.

South from Tombstone

The preparations were remarkably serious. Purdy’s seconds were Judge Edward McGowan and John Sevenoaks. Dr. George Goodfellow accompanied them as surgeon. Hamilton was attended by William Millikin and John Burke, with Dr. McSweegan prepared to treat the wounded. Colt revolvers were chosen, and the distance was fixed at ten paces.

The parties left Tombstone in carriages and passed through Charleston late at night. At about three o’clock in the morning, Purdy’s group reached the rendezvous near Hereford and found that Hamilton’s party had arrived roughly an hour earlier. They built a fire and waited for daylight.

The entourage then continued south. One detailed account said the men traveled to the international boundary and several miles into Sonora before selecting a broad, level mesa. Crossing into Mexico placed the meeting beyond Arizona law, but it did not make the arrangements any easier.

Ten Paces—and No Agreement

The ground was measured. Purdy and Hamilton were placed ten paces apart. Hamilton’s side produced two new Colt .45 revolvers. Purdy tried them and objected that their triggers were too hard. Purdy’s party then offered another pair of pistols. Hamilton’s seconds rejected those because Purdy was familiar with them and might have practiced with them beforehand.

The seconds attempted compromises. They discussed selecting from among the four revolvers, but no proposal satisfied both sides. The dispute over the weapons ended the meeting before either editor fired.

Purdy’s own second, Edward McGowan, soon published a defense of his actions and of Purdy’s objection to Hamilton’s particular pistols. Another newspaper observed that the challenged party could choose the kind of weapon, but questioned whether that gave him the right to select the individual guns. The same report added that some people considered the disagreement a pretext—then carefully declined to express an opinion.

“All Are Alive”

News of the failure reached Arizona readers almost immediately. A Charleston dispatch opened with the assurance that “the dueling party has returned and all are alive.” Another paper reported that mutual objections to the weapons produced a general refusal to shed blood and that the parties left the ground in “one grand disgust.”

The episode was soon labeled “The Bloodless Duel.” The ridicule did not need to be invented by later storytellers; it was already present in the reporting of September 1882. The facts were sufficient: two prominent editors, four seconds, two surgeons, a night journey, an international border, Colt revolvers and ten measured paces—followed by an argument over trigger pull and a return to Tombstone.

Less than a month later, Purdy resigned from the Epitaph. The paper attributed his departure to family matters, including his wife’s health and the sudden death of his brother-in-law at Yuma. There is no solid contemporary evidence that the failed duel forced him out.

Later accounts tried to make one participant the hero and the other the coward. The immediate newspapers were less tidy. They disagreed about the formal challenger, debated the rules governing the pistols and mocked the entire expedition. What they consistently reported was that Purdy and Hamilton reached the field, stood at the appointed distance—and came home without firing a shot.

Research Notes and Article Trail

The post was built from the contemporary clippings assembled during the research, not from the later polished versions of the story. The notes below show what each article contributed and where the evidence remains incomplete. Several supplied clippings do not display a complete masthead or publication date; those are identified by headline or opening words rather than assigned a newspaper or date that cannot be verified from the image.

1. The duel party leaves Tombstone

Identification: Contemporary telegraphic report, published immediately after the party departed on the night of September 13, 1882. The supplied clipping begins, “It is high time in Tombstone that Hon. Samuel Purdy … and Hon. Patrick Hamilton … departed for Sonora last evening to fight a duel.”

Used for: The identities of the two principals; the presence of seconds and surgeons; Dr. George Goodfellow’s participation; Colt revolvers; ten paces; the proposed Sonora location; and the statement that the dispute grew from scurrilous newspaper articles.

Caution: This report calls Purdy the challenger. Other immediate accounts describe Hamilton as the challenged party. The post therefore does not force the evidence into a single, certain version of the formal challenge.

2. “The Bloodless Purdy-Hamilton Duel in Sonora”

Identification: Detailed Arizona newspaper account carrying Charleston and Tombstone dispatches dated September 14, 1882. The article includes the subheads “Meeting and No Bloodshed,” “The Field of Honor,” and a statement from Judge Edward McGowan.

Used for: The rendezvous near Hereford; the approximate arrival times; the campfire and wait for daylight; the journey toward and into Sonora; the level mesa; the personnel on both sides; the Colt .45 revolvers; the heavy-trigger objection; the competing pistols; attempted compromises; and McGowan’s defense of Purdy’s conduct.

Caution: The scan is difficult in places, particularly portions of McGowan’s statement. Only clearly readable details were used.

3. Charleston dispatch: “all alive”

Identification: Arizona Citizen clipping carrying two special dispatches from Charleston dated September 14, 1882.

Used for: The late-night passage through Charleston; the statement that Purdy and Hamilton had exchanged “the most bitter personalities”; the ten measured paces; the competing pairs of pistols; the named seconds and surgeons; and the contemporary line that the party returned “all alive.”

Caution: This account treats Hamilton’s side as the challenged party. It is one reason the challenger’s identity is left qualified.

4. “The Duel” editorial reaction

Identification: Immediate Arizona newspaper comment based on a Charleston telegram; complete masthead and date are not visible in the supplied clipping.

Used for: Contemporary ridicule of the failed meeting, including the description of the affair as a “decided failure,” the “general refusal to shed blood,” and the line that the parties left in “one grand disgust.”

Caution: This is editorial reaction rather than an eyewitness narrative. It is used to show how quickly the affair was mocked, not to settle disputed details.

5. Hamilton’s September 13 card to Purdy

Identification: Article headed “Cause of the Unpleasantness,” reproducing Patrick Hamilton’s card printed in the Independent on September 13, 1882.

Used for: Hamilton’s accusations against Purdy; his demand for “satisfaction”; and the quoted charge that Purdy’s refusal marked him as “a liar and poltroon.” It establishes the intensity and language of the feud immediately before the expedition.

Caution: Hamilton’s charges are partisan accusations by one combatant. The post attributes them to Hamilton and does not repeat them as proven facts. Purdy’s original Epitaph article that provoked the card has not been found.

6. Hamilton challenges J. O. Dunbar

Identification: Published correspondence dated Tombstone, September 11, 1882, containing Hamilton’s letter to J. O. Dunbar and Dunbar’s answer.

Used for: Proof that Hamilton challenged another Tombstone editor during the same week; Hamilton’s request for a meeting “without publicity”; Dunbar’s explicit description of the communication as a duel challenge; and Dunbar’s refusal on the ground that he would not become a lawbreaker.

Caution: The OCR and scan render Dunbar’s initials inconsistently in some derivative references. The signed correspondence in the clipping is treated as the controlling evidence.

7. “Dunbar declines with thanks”

Identification: Short contemporary item summarizing the Hamilton-Dunbar exchange; complete masthead and date are not visible in the supplied clipping.

Used for: Independent confirmation, in a concise contemporary summary, that Hamilton challenged Dunbar and Dunbar refused.

Caution: This item adds confirmation and period tone but no substantial facts beyond the published correspondence.

8. Hamilton and Purdy as an Epitaph team

Identification: Earlier newspaper item reporting that the Tombstone Epitaph had been “reinforced with the brains of Hon. Pat. Hamilton” and describing Hamilton and Purdy as a Democratic team.

Used for: Evidence that the future antagonists had previously worked together at the Epitaph; also the contemporary joke about which member of the two-man “pack train” would carry the whisky.

Caution: The supplied image does not show a complete masthead or date. It is used only for the prior working relationship and the quoted contemporary joke.

9. Hamilton leaves the Epitaph

Identification: Short contemporary notice stating that Hamilton had “slid off the editorial tripod” and Purdy was managing the Epitaph “single handed.”

Used for: The end of the Hamilton-Purdy editorial partnership before Hamilton’s association with the Independent.

Caution: The clipping does not display its publication title or date. No motive for Hamilton’s departure is inferred.

10. The Epitaph changes management

Identification: Earlier report that the Tombstone Epitaph had changed hands and passed to a Democratic syndicate under Judge Samuel Purdy’s management.

Used for: Background identifying Purdy as more than a passing contributor and documenting his editorial management of the Epitaph.

Caution: The supplied image is incomplete. The article’s humorous quotations about the Epitaph’s political change were not necessary to the duel narrative.

11. Tombstone Epitaph, October 7, 1882

Identification: Tombstone Epitaph editorial notice, page 2, October 7, 1882, announcing Purdy’s resignation as former editor and proprietor.

Used for: The timing of Purdy’s departure and the paper’s stated explanation: his family’s health, the sudden death of his brother-in-law at Yuma, and business connected with that death.

Caution: The post does not connect the resignation to the failed duel because this contemporary explanation supplies family reasons and says Purdy had contemplated a change for some time.

12. Routine editorial mockery

Identification: Two contemporary clippings responding to statements in Hamilton’s Independent: one about politics destroying friendship and honor, and another replying to “facts are stubborn things.”

Used for: Evidence that public sarcasm and personal newspaper attacks formed the atmosphere surrounding the feud. The second response—suggesting that the Independent rarely indulged in facts—is paraphrased in the post.

Caution: These are partisan editorials. They demonstrate tone, not the truth of any accusation against Hamilton.

13. “Purdy Joins”

Identification: Editorial welcoming Purdy to newspaper work and describing the hazards and attractions of conducting a frontier newspaper; the supplied clipping lacks a fully readable masthead and date.

Used for: Background on the period’s self-conscious, combative view of newspaper work.

Caution: This clipping informed the research context but was not relied upon for a specific factual statement in the final narrative.

Evidence not used as the foundation

Later twentieth-century retellings and the 1903 retrospective were consulted during the investigation, but they were not used to control the narrative where they conflicted with the September 1882 reports. Those later versions tend to assign clear roles of hero and coward. The contemporary evidence is less certain and, for Tarnished West purposes, more important.

Remaining gap

The principal missing document is Purdy’s original Epitaph attack on Hamilton, published shortly before Hamilton’s September 13 card. Until it is found, the exact opening insult and the formal sequence of demand, refusal, acceptance and challenge cannot be stated with certainty.

Names and spellings

Period reports and imperfect scans vary in spelling. This post uses Millikin, McGowan, Sevenoaks, McSweegan and Goodfellow. Quoted wording is preserved only where it is clearly readable in the supplied clippings.