New-York tribune., 1911-01-09
SHALL ST. ANDREWS RULE?
Leichton CaIkinS Says This Is
Point of Golf Controversy.
pUTTER. NOT MAIN ISSUE
predicts That Americans viii
Not Put Up with Situation
So Absurd.

Ygoe doctors who differ over the ailments
- mankind so are the leading golf ply
.cians ever solicitous as TO the games
,silbeing At present the royal sport
.s-rs 10 be disturbed By an attack OF
s5ieestion. not necessarily serious in itself,
49, unless arrested may result In lasting
rh,ry. Leighton Calkins. tie man who
,-ias more than a year ago revised the
sopstitution Of the United States Golf AS
,neist.or, has not been impressed with the
.tsst statement by Charles 3. Macdon-
.N on centre shafted clubs and other
.oipts OF rules over which this country dis
agrees with ST. Andrews.
IN a further discussion Oh the subject
a. Calkins points out that, in his opinion,
,bs whole trouble seems 20 be that it is
s,ken for granted that unless this country
.ort.uuss to let St Andrews legislate there
,,HI soon be an entirely different set Of
ru.s over here. He also predicts that
American players viii not forever put up
~,th q situation which is absurd. The
ssstement received by AIr. Calkins follows:
have read that Mr.. Macdonald intends
~ write another letter 20 the secretary Of
3 United States Golf Association in order
n explain exactly what the new rule on
r0~-g and MAKE OF NAAJS means. E44H III q
hitter he says, was too snort because ne
sook ID for granted that there was some
Fsueral knowledge Of the situation on this
S5s OF the water. / should Ike 20 ask how
ttat knowledge was TO be had? ST. An
krews TOOK nc pains - euliChten the United
s-ates Golf Association as TO what II had
Sone OF why. OF course. everybody now
Knows that St. Andrews did not ask our as
scciatioN for ITS opinion on the new rule be-
Nr. MacdonaId, unfortunately, misses the
oo!nt Let US assume that BY means OF
Second letter 70 our national secretary he
esu AZ last succeed in explaining just what
SUls 81 Andrews did make. and why. Let
rs also assume that he can make US all be-
leve that IL Is, after al q really good rule.
Il "a not perfectly apparent that he will
rsestion Is How shall the rules be made?
khst we stumble about IN the dark for
weeks and months before we can find on.
Ire new rule Is not IN issue. That is a
rEtter OF minor importance. Let us ad-
rit n YOU viii, that centre Saafted CLUBS
eugnt = 60. The point Is whether we shall
soHt.rue % accept ST. Andrews's legisla-
tlo1 The Only reason why We have done
90 heretofore is 70 preserve uniformity IN
lhs rules There is a Tar better way, and
ere wnich requires that 81. Andrews shall
e its part, as u should. Let US take the
present. 81. Andrews code (wlth the six or
seven changes which we have already
rasde) and enutle II The Rules Of Golf as
ISOLATION" Then let US in a cautious letter
say 70 ST. Andrews that we intend here
after IL the interest OF uniformity in the
rules, % make 10 changes OF any KIND
without advising them in advance, in the
hope that en- agreement can always be
reached Surely all that would be neces-
ssrg would De for ST Andrews 10 adopt the
sane plan a7o consult Us before they make
frrther changes. II they prefer not 70. We
shall not be responsible Il little by little
ths rules grow apart.
Tie whole trouble seems 10 be that II IS
taken for granted that unless We continue
% let St Andrews legislate We shall soon
have entirely different rules IN this coun-
i~y IN my judgment we surely will have,
and before very long, a complete breaking
avay from ST.. Andrews il we continue this
mistaken policy. American players will
rct forever put Up with q situation which
Is 90 absurd that IL seems extraordinary