Mike Cirba,
Well obviously you are still posting and arguing, so that cannot be the reason you refuse to address questions aimed at a better understanding of the facts.
Let me try again with the simplest of questions . . .
1. What is your factual basis for believing that Mr. Baily knew anything about the details of the planning stage (pre-April 1911) of Merion East?
2. Do Merion's internal records (Minutes and such) make any mention of Hugh Wilson's involvement in the planning process, pre-April 1911?
3. How did you go about obtaining permission from MCC and MGC to review their internal documents?
Given that you are here posting anyway, why not clarify these few points at least?
Thanks.
David,
I'll answer your questions and then I'm done with this. This is a silly waste of time and others here are rightfully questioning all of our sanity.
1) When I originally posted the Baily letter, I almost wrote, "DUCK, Mr. Baily", because I knew given your legal training that you're taught that if the witness delivers damaging testimony you first need to attack their credibility, and you certainly didn't disappoint. Whatever poor Mr. Baily did to deserve this posthumous treatment simply reminds me that no good deed goes unpunished, that any humble , self-effacing statement will be twisted into some evidence of incompetence by someone trying to score a historical rhetorical point, and to always consider intent as well as dry facts.
Let's post his letter again, shall we?
The first point to note is that Mr. Baily is not speaking for himself, but speaking as the representative of "a number of golfers (members) of the Merion Cricket Club." He uses the pronoun "we" to indicate this, as well.
So, if you are going to try and damage Baily's testimony, you also need to find a way to cast doubt on the rest of the unnamed members who all seem unanimous in their deep appreciation for the work in "laying out and constructing" the course that Hugh Wilson and his committee did.
I should mention again that the course opened in September 1912, and the time of Mr. Baily's letter is April 1913, so shortly after.
The next thing to notice about the letter is that it's a mere formality, put in writing, because the dinner is already arranged with a date, price, venue, etc. So, whatever role Baily held within Merion it certainly was from a position of power, because he's notifying the Merion president after the fact.
It is also virtually certain that our Henry Baily was the brother of Frederick Baily, who was one of five men on the Merion Site Committee who brought down CBM in June 1910 and reported in writing on those events. Likely, if anyone knew of a larger role for CBM (or more preposterously, HH Barker) then it was certainly someone on the Site Committee. Makes you wonder why they didn't have a party for Macdonald and/or Barker?
If you think Henry Baily wasn't brothers with Frederick Baily then look it up because I'm through wasting my time bringing new evidence to light solo.
You also avoided my earlier question related to this letter, which was;
If indeed "laying out" meant putting stakes in the ground to a routing plan created by someone else, how could one possibly spend long, painstaking hours in the process, for what seems like months on end? With a surveyor like Francis, wouldn't this be something that could be done in an afternoon or two?
Further, why would Wilson need to "study" anything to accomplish this task? Wouldn't he just put the sticks in the ground where he was told??
Further, what in the heck would be so special about the process that it would be singled out as a separate process as in "laying out and constructing", which is what everyone at the time said Hugh Wilson's committee did??2) David, have you ever served on a Board, or attended a Board Meeting? I seriously wonder if you have because you would know that a sub-committee reporting to a standing committee would almost never have cause for mention at a Board level, much less the members of that sub-committee.
During the meeting Robert Lesley, in his report for the standing Golf Committee read into the record;
“Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different golf courses on the new ground, they went down to the National course with Mr. Macdonald and spent the evening going over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard to golf courses. The next day we spent on the ground studying the various holes that were copied after the famous ones abroad.”
"On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans. On April 6th Mr. Macdonald and Mr. Whigham came over and spent the day on the ground, and after looking over the various plans, and the ground itself, decided that if we would lay it out according to the plan they approved, which is submitted here-with, that it would result not only in a first class course, but that the last seven holes would be equal to any inland course in the world. In order to accomplish this, it will be necessary to acquire 3 acres additional."….
“Whereas the Golf Committee presented a plan showing the proposed layout of the new golf ground which necessitated the exchange of a portion of the land already purchased for other land adjoining...Resolved that the board approve the exchange.…………..and the purchase of 3 acres additional for $7,500”
David, the reason this type of matter went to the Board level at all wasn't to praise Wilson or anyone else....it was simply to authorize the additional purchase for the three acres.
3) David, like yourself, I do not intend to talk about my private dealings with any club or course on this website. I trust you understand, and my involvement in this nonsense is now at an end. I trust you understand that, as well.