Mike, you are off on a tangent and I'd like to get the bottom of a few things, before you completely move on:
1. You argue that adding the land behind the clubhouse was obvious. So why then wasn't it Hugh Wilson who was adding it? If CBM's role was as you say it was then what the heck was he doing advising Merion to add this land to their golf course? Do you really think it possible that he had no idea what he would do with it when he advised them (repeatedly) to add it? David, first, let's clear up the misconception that Macdonald "advised them (repeatedly) to add it". There is absolutely no record of that and frankly I think it was Tom Paul who incorrectly interpreted the MCC Minutes regarding the 3 acres purchase approved in April 1911 (the Thompson Resolution) and in trying to be fair to Macdonald and Whigham, thought that perhaps they should at least get credit for that as it was their recommdendation 10 months prior that Merion should grab that parcel adjacent to their clubhouse. He now believes, as do I, that the 3 acres in question was a boundary line shift along today's Golf House Road that required Board Approval to move from the 117 acres they originally secured in November 1910 to the 120 that they eventually purchased in July 1911. I know of no other mention of the 3 acres, so I'm not sure how the word "repeatedly" is appropriate to your description? In fact, being strictly technical, there is no evidence that they specifically mentioned those three acres at all.
As far as whether it was obvious or not, or why Hugh Wilson wasn't the one who suggested it, that's just ridiculous, David. At the time, in June 1910, Rodman Griscom invited M&W over to give their opinion on a property that Merion was considering for purchase. The developer Connell had recently brought Garden City pro HH Barker over, who had been playing in the US Open in town. We don't know if M&W were here visiting for that tournament or not, but in either case, they arrived and looked over the property.
The property in question at that time was almost certainly the northeastern and southern quadrants of the Johnson Farm which made up 119 acres in total, as that was the only land that Connell's group owned outright at that time. After the meeting, Lesley reported that the purchase of "almost 120 acres" would be required.
Because that land had certain disadvantages in terms of configuration and shape, and a large quarry, even though 120 acres was generally thought to be more than ample for a golf course when 6,100 yards was of Championship, or "ideal" configuration, M&W themselves told us that they weren't sure it was big enough. It was "L shaped", it was narrow, it was crossed by a public road, it had a thin northern section and another odd configuration in the far southwest portion and again, it had that big quarry which was the good news/bad news.
So Macdonald & Whigham told them that, "The most difficult problem
you have to contend with is to get in eighteen holes that will be first class in the acreage you propose buying." and said, "So far as we can judge, without a contour map before us, we are of the opinion that it can be done (note the languague, if they were indeed asked to design the course, wouldnt they say "were of of the opinion that WE can do it?) , provided you get a little more land near where you propose making your Club House."
Note that they never do mention the 3 acres of railroad land they eventually leased, but instead simply said that they should try to get more land near the clubhouse.
Why would that be a good idea? Well, for one, given the space taken up by the existing clubhouse structure(s) on what was already a fairly narrow strip, and the need for ingress and egress, for a road for members with motor vehicles and probably a parking lot and the need for minimally locating starting and finishing holes there, and possibly returning nines, wouldn't that be a good recommendation on any level? Plus, the creek would certainly make a nice hazard, possibly envisioned as a great closing hole somehow.
Indeed, they did mention the creek, as well as the quarry; "Mr. Whigham and I discussed the various merits of the land you propose buying, and we think it has some very desirable features. The quarry and the brooks can be made much of. What it lacks in abrupt mounds can be largely rectified."
Their mention of the quarry jumps right off the page which is why it always seemed strange to me that those who believe in a literal interpretation of Francis (LIFS) have to contend that the portion of property bought on Macdonald's recommendation ended abruptly and arbitrarily just 65 yards north of the quarry when much more land was availble...another 300+ yards, in fact going in that direction. It seems absurd and almost bizarre that M&W would have impinged the Merion club with such a limiting configuration on a feature they obviously saw the potential of, the dramatic quarry.
2. You seem to have finally realized that your understanding of the NGLA meetings -- first day a general discussion about general principles and the second day a grand tour of NGLA -- makes absolutely no sense given what else we know. Isn't it possible that this is not what they were doing at all? And that they were actually discussing how to lay out the course? After all, even your bud Alan Wilson acknowledges that the NGLA meetings were about the layout of the East Course? David, they tell us specifically what they did at NGLA, and now you have not only Hugh Wilson's first-person 1916 recollections, but you have his 1911 Committee report, as well. Why are you trying to put words into it that aren't there? As far as Alan Wilson, he wasn't there at NGLA either, but this is what he said;
"Those two good and kindly sportsmen, Charles B. MacDonald and H.J. Whigam, the men who conceived the idea of and
designed the National Links at Southampton....—twice came to Haverford, first to go over the ground and later
to consider and advise about our plans. They also had our committee as their guests at the National and their advice and suggestions as to the lay-out of Merion East were of the greatest help and value."
Their "advice" and "suggestions" certainly are not words signifying authorship, creation, or responsibility, but besides that, what does the first phrase of the sentence have to do with the second?? He was talking about their OVERALL help with the project, not what they did at NGLA! He is saying that they came down and went over the ground....they came later to consider and advise about Merion's plans and we now know precisely what that means from the MCC Minutes, where Macdonald helped them pick the best plan of the final five they created....and oh, by the way, he also had our Committee out to the National to show them how he had done it there, and where the committee could see his sketches from abroad, as well as his versions of the ideal holes he had created at NGLA and pick his brain. And that's PRECISELY what Hugh Wilson tells us they did, not one time, but twice!
"...They went down to the National course with Mr. Macdonald and spent the evening looking over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard to golf courses. The next day was spent on the ground studying the various holes that were copied after the famous ones abroad." - MCC Minutes April 1911
"We spent two days with Mr. Macdonald at his bungalow near the National course and in one night absorbed more ideas on golf course construction than in all the years we had played. Through sketches and explanations of the correct principles of the holes that form the famous courses abroad and had stood the test of time, we learned what was right and what we should try to do with our natural conditions. The next day we spent going over the course and studying the different holes." - Hugh Wilson 1916As for your tangents, I agree that NGLA had a tremendous influence on future courses and still does. But based on photos and descriptions of the courses in Philadelphia prior to NGLA and Merion, these courses had little or nothing in common with CBM's approach to architecture, or the fundamental strategic principles he advocated. You're kidding, right? The men on the Merion Committee had been to the best courses in the US at that time, played regularly at Garden City, had now seen NGLA, and Philadelphins at the time were also heavily influenced by what a guy named Ross was doing at their winter retreat in North Carolina.
In May 1912, five months before the opening of the new Merion course, "Far and Sure" wrote the following in "American Golfer";
To make some leap of contention that NGLA was their only source of influence based on the fact that most of the first courses in Philadelphia built around the turn of the previous century (most of which were designed by foreign professionals like John Reid, Willie Campbell, Willie Tucker) were of the steeple-chase variety is really a red-herring. EVERYONE in America was changing at the time, due largely to the Haskell ball, but also because of a general frustration that was was originally built here wasn't very good. And although NGLA was revolutionary in the sense of building 18 "ideal holes" based on holes abroad, these things were being talked about in cognescenti golf circles for a number of years prior...just read Travis during this time for a prime example...it's just that some of these things took time to bring to frutiion, as was the case with NGLA with about 5 years from start to opening.