Regarding post 19 above, it is unfortunate that the desire to disagree with me is stronger in some than is the desire to present accurate information.
It is true that there was a movement (lead by H.J. Whigham) to separate the Amateur and the Open in time so that the top Amateurs would not have to play both tournaments back to back. But the danger was, if they separated the tournaments in time, the USGA was concerned that they could not find any club to host the Open. From the minutes:
Granville Kane: The idea is that some clubs might care to hold the amateur championship and do not care to hold the open championship. Therefore, I should say that the two events should be held by separate clubs on separate links.
. . .
S. L. Parrish: The open event seems to be unpopular, so far as I make out. Are we liable to run into this condition of affairs, that everybody will be scrambling for the amateur event? We are liable to be placed in the position of whether, anybody would be willing to take the open event. One represents cream and the other skim-milk, and we should consider whether those who wish the cream should not be compelled to take it diluted. And I would like to ask an expression of opinion from these gentlemen, when they were called upon to make application for the open event, whether it is the opinion of the golfers here tonight that the open event would be liable to obtain a candidate, because, if it does not, there is nothing in our constitution or by-laws to compel a club to accept the open event.
Indeed the event was unpopular enough amongst the clubs that Samuel Parrish contemplated that the USGA would have to offer cash to incentivize any club to take on the Open tournament, whereas the host of the Amateur would have to "pay its own expenses:"
S. L. Parrish: There is one element there. The executive committee has been allowing a certain amount of money to the club which held the combination event. Now, I apprehend that some clubs would not take the open event, on the ground of the expense. In other words, they would not feel that the bother and trouble of it was warranted by the honor. If, on the other hand, a certain amount of money was appropriated to the club which held the open event, with the understanding that the club which held the amateur event should pay its own expenses, I think it might possibly create 'an' equilibrium. In other words, the amateur event would be rewarded by honor, -and- the open event would be rewarded by a certain amount of cash.
And these weren't hypothetical concerns. At the 1898 annual meeting there were two clubs seeking the Amateur, Morris County and St. Andrews. Morris County, though, tendered an offer to host only the Amateur, and not the Open. They explicitly stated they would not host the Open. St. Andrews also wanted to host the Amateur, and was willing to take the Open as a package deal. But once the dates were split, and Morris County was awarded the Amateur, St. Andrews did not throw its hat in the ring to host the Open. So we had one club unwilling to take the Open under any circumstance, and the other only willing to take the Open if they were also given the Amateur. Hardly a prestige event. So at the end of the annual meeting, there was no club willing to take the Open.
Myopia, though, was the one club not represented at the meeting, and sometime thereafter, Myopia agreed to take the "skim milk," as Samuel Parrish put it. I don't know whether the club was offered the special financial incentives that Parrish had mentioned at the meeting.