I don't know what you are talking about Mike and don't much care what you think the "big news" was, nor do I think it mattered one bit.
It is not that complicated.
1. The newspapers had a copy the Notice and Agreement sent by CBM to the founders, as well as additional information from CBM and/or HJW.
2. The newspapers mistakenly thought and reported that the hypothetical in the 1904 Agreement controlled what would happen on the ground at NGLA.
Is this really too hard for you to understand?
David,
I think I actually understand things quite well and they are becoming clearer as a result of this discussion, thanks.
The idea that two independent newspapers would just happen to have a copy of a private correspondence Macdonald sent over two years prior to potential Founding members laying around to report on less than 24 hours after CBM "announced" that contracts had been signed is beyond preposterous, wouldn't you agree? Instead, I think it's much more likely that the original Agreement was part of the larger Press release that accompanied that announcement, and it's clear that the terms of that Agreement had not changed by that time.
Beyond that, the Brooklyn Daily Eagle report the next day included information that was in neither of the previous day's stories, so that couldn't have been "cribbed" as you suggested either, correct?
That story also seemed to have more information than just repeating the terms of the Agreement however, and hints that CBM may already be reconsidering the cottage plan as it says,
"While the matter is not settled, it is likely that the bordering land not required for the links will be set apart in individual parcels for the founders who may eventually build summer cottages thereon."That's somewhat different than what was included in the original agreement and seems to have been based on more insider information of the evolving thinking, no?
Also, one of the "next day" stories quotes Macdonald glowing extensively about the land he has secured, and he states,
"There are sites available for houses and yachts may approach through Great Peconic Bay." Now, I know you suggested that he was talking about building sites that the Real Estate Developer was having surveyed but none of the land of Sebonac Neck was included in the Olmsted/Vaux survey so there were in effect NO sites available for houses. Further, the Olmsted/Vaux plan wasn't produced until sometime in the spring of 1907 so there were truly NO sites anywhere in the Shinnecock Hills at that time in December 1906. When that plan was completed in the spring of 1907, only a single building lot down near today's 9th green was even close to the land that Macdonald had just secured and we already know access to the remote site was a major consideration and problematic risk to be overcome.
And why would Macdonald mix up his sites within a single sentence? Weren't the yachts going to approach the 200 acres he had just secured through the adjoining Peconic Bay?
Finally, if indeed all of these newspapers were incorrect in reporting the current project thinking, why wouldn't Macdonald, or Emmet, or Whigham, or Travis, or any of the powerful men involved with the club have asked for a retraction, or pen a correcting story?
I think that the answer to all of these questions is very obvious and indeed not at all complicated.