Mike, If this case has been "perplexing" and "frustrating" for you it is perhaps because you have had a desired conclusion in mind from the beginning, and so you are trying to twist and rationalize away the historical record in order to keep propping up your desired result.
Take, for example, the 1915 article which stated, "The course has already been laid out by a professional." You don't want this to be true, so you make up attenuated (and, frankly, laughable) reasons to ignore this article. You don't take it at face value because it was on the front page of the newspaper as opposed to the sports page. You don't take it at face value because in your mind the writing was "more attuned to a local community paper," whatever that is supposed to mean.
Look at the article. It is full of detailed information which could only have come directly from sources within the club itself. Yet you insist on ignoring it because you don't like the content. And you are taking a somewhat similar approach with the other two references to professionals who may have been involved with the creation of the course. You have no contemporaneous record of Hugh Wison having even been involved, yet you insist you have proven he is the architect. You've got three references to professionals potentially having been involved, yet you rationalize away each one.
It is quite obvious from the beginning that your really want Hugh Wilson to have been the architect, and that you will dismiss, ignore, or rationalize away anything which leads to any other conclusions.
This is not how sound analysis is supposed to work. Wishful thinking isn't enough.