New-York tribune., 1911-01-30

Leighton Calkins, president Of the Plain
field Country Club, denies that he is in a
state of excitement over the putter ques-
ton. as charged by John VI. Ward. Mr.
CalkinS writes as follows:
When challenged Mr.. Wards statement
last week challenged its accuracy but not
ms motives. / nave assumed from the be-
ginning that those VINO have taken diff
isTent view have been equally sincere in
what they believe 10 be for the good Of the
ga. game IN tins country II is therefore 70 oe
day should have allowed himself to use
even such moderate personalities as wild
eyed reiormer and 'lrreVerent iconoclast."
even though he may not have had me in
mind. He does. however. charge me with
being IN state Of excitement, although
am unconscious Of the fact. Let me sug-
gest IN al good nature, that 1t may be
possible 10 differ from Mr. Ward as 70 the
advisabllity Of continuing 10 allow St. An
dreNs 10 make the playing rules for this
country without being guilty OF any lack
either an 'iconoclast" or 'irreverent" to
st. Andrews. Because we voluntarily have
played according 10 the St Andrews code
for some. fifteen years is no reason why
we should be called "wild-eyed," even If We
do believe in some reform
| charged Mr. Ward with having made
most mslead ng statement when he said
that the United States Golf Association
'billtNuto " pay dlltEldItc 10 81. ANDREWS.
The impression given was that we have
not substantially changed our attitude.
The average golfer who has not followed
the entire controversy I'm detail would sup
pose that ST. Andrews is still In position
to legislate for this country. | repeat and
charge tnat IL Is misleading to allow such
an impression 70 prevail The practical ef-
feet OF the change IN our bylaws Is to adopt
the 1895 revision as the American code, ex-
cept ~ since then amended by US or as
hereafter amended by us. II all that was
no future 81. Andrews legislation should be
operative IN this country until ST. Andrews
has time 10 notify us OF 10 officially, as Mr..
Ward claims, il would have been easy 10
say 20. Whatever the intent, however the
fact remains that hereafter ST. Andrews
can make what rules il likes, but they will
not be rules here unless we decide that we
like them and proceed TO enact them our
selves. II Mr.. Ward really thinks that this
is no change from our previous attitude, he
is welcome 10 his opinion. II he also thinks
that this IS continuance OF our so-called
allegiance TO ST. Andrews, I am sincerely
glad of II. because no one wants him 10 be
dissatisfied.
TIE second particular in which charac-
terizod Mr. Wards statement as being mis-
leading was where he stated that he went
10 Chicago under instructions 10 favor the
retention Of the Schenectady putter. Any
one reading his statement would naturally
have supposed that that was all there was
70 IT, His inetructions. however. were writ
ten out IN detail and they directed him 10
vote IN favor. not OF the Schenectady put
ter. but OF retaining Bylaw 10. The Garden
City Club was in favor OF retaining the
Schcnect ady by the device by which IL has
been retained. but gave no written instruc-
tons on that matter. because IL regarded
the retention OF Bylaw 10 as the matter OF
real importance. Had Bylaw 10 been re-
tained St. Andrews could outlaw all wooden
clubs tomorrow. and they would become
outlawed here. Under the amendment Of
BYLAW 10 such legislation abroad would not
"a III after Sr Andrews had
time 10 notify US officially I repeat. Mr..
Ward gave q wrong impression. and I cor
rected IL. fully believing 1t 10 have been in
I hardly think NJ. Ward should show
pidue because although not a member OF
Garden City. I Undertook 10 call attention
10 the f,Nt that hc had not covered the en-
tire ground Re 10 his instructions. He says
that his statement was Intended merely as
a report 70 the memters or his own club
as 10 what happened at Chicago. 1t is
perhapS fair 70 suggest that II his report
had been made privately II might have
gone through uncuestioned. But having
made a club reDort In a public manner he
invited the interest of the public and ought
not 20 - offended II he got II.
Mr. Ward may he unaware NJ 1t. hut 81
Andrews has beer severely criticised
abroad for suggesting that we adont that
part OF their recent legislation which bars
u1allets. iFnor'ng their acton In outlawing
al centrA-shat'ed clubs. " Is frankly ad-
mitted abroad that In failing 30 make an
amcr'went ~ this country outlaw'ng cen
tre-sha'ted clubs we have not only saved
the Schenectady but suUarelv failed to
adopt 81 Andrews rule through the de-
vice Of calling IL an INTERPRETATION" | am
of the opinion that II is the last time we
viii ever do such a thing. Every one
fnows what orr purpose was. Having no
objection 20 o"tlawing malets. We followed
Cap'nin purrs's suggestion. IN order 10 pre-
serve good feeling. The entire thing WAS
collateral - our main question. The re-
form (and IL was not "wild-eyed'D was the
amendment of Rvlsw 10 and the adoption
~ n resolution which NAV ultimately lead
to the adontinn or universal code. III st
Andrews cares enough about one to join
with. other national associations not only
In adopting but In preserving n!