But granted that the first of these improvements is determined upon, I cannot see how the arrangement of the contest can possibly be bettered. The tournament will last five days, however large the entry may be; all the bad players will be removed from the field after the first day; the winner must play five matches of thirty-six holes each, including the preliminary medal round; there can be no possible chance of a lucky draw; and the man who finally becomes champion will have earned the title by sheer superiority of skill and endurance. So much for the amateur championship. This means, of course, that the open event must be played on a separate occasion. So far that contest has been robbed of nearly all its interest by being thrown in, as it were, at the end of the tournament, which is manifestly hard upon the professionals, whose play, under the circumstances, attracts very little attention; and unfair to the amateurs, who cannot be expected to do themselves justice after the wear and tear of their own competition. It is only right, moreover, to remark, in passing, that American amateur form has been slightly discredited abroad for this very reason. In the championship tournament of 1897 the best amateur score was eleven strokes behind the winning score of 163 made by Lloyd; and it is argued by writers on the subject in England that the amateurs in America are therefore considerably behind amateurs in Britain on that account. The fact is undoubtedly true, but not to the extent that the figures would show; simply because the amateurs in America have entered the open contest, up to the present time, merely as a matter of custom, without the slightest chance of displaying their best form. Lloyd's score of 163 was an exceedingly fine one, considering the length of the course; but it must be remembered that in the same week, under stress of greater heat, the first three returns for the Chicago cup were 81, 82 and 83, the latter score being made by Mr. J. A. Tyng, an American player of only three years' standing. To be perfectly just to the professionals, I would say that only one or two of them show any superiority whatever over the best amateur form, and that both amateurs and professionals are from three to four strokes behind their colleagues on the other side of the Atlantic.

The Rules

To return from this digression, let us look for a moment at the question of the rules of the game. It is here that the American association has an enormous advantage over the governing body at St. Andrews. With all possible respect and love for the Royal and Ancient home of the game, I am constrained to assert, having the broad Atlantic between me and the niblicks of those who will gainsay me, that the various codes of rules sanctioned by the members of the club from time to time are monuments of judicial inefficiency. The fact is that the ordinary Scotch player who has been born and bred in the atmosphere of the game has no need of a written code at all. He plays the game by instinct and as the spirit guides him. That is precisely the reason why the old fashioned St. Andrews player was of necessity incompetent to draw up rules for the guidance of those who did not play by precedent rather than precept. What might be abundantly clear to him, knowing the practice and tradition, would probably be most obscure to the Englishman and American. That this is the case has been proved conclusively by the voluminous rulings and interpretations made by Messrs. Rutherford and Lockyer; and yet their work left an enormous field for discussion upon points which they did not even touch. Of course it is impossible to make the rules of the game absolutely sufficient for the purpose; but there is a wide gulf between such a state of perfection and the condition of thing's as they now exist. A careful study of the latest code of rules will convince any unprejudiced person that there are very few which, even to the experienced golfer, may not bear various meaning's, and several which, if carried to their legitimate conclusion, are manifestly absurd. Fortunately the United States Golf Association has been able to issue a book of ruling's and interpretations which does not altogether do away with the incongruities of the original code, but does at least settle a number of disputed points. In Great Britain this course was out of the question because obviously the Royal and Ancient club, having issued its edict, could not, without appearing ridiculous, publish an explanation of the same. Messrs. Rutherford and Lockyer's work might have been of some assistance, but it was without authority, and could not really be quoted in defense of any argument. The United States Golf Association were very careful not to alter a single word in the text of the St. Andrews rules, and in this respect they acted very wisely. The interpretations in many cases answer the purpose of a new rule, and in the meantime we may hope for a new and better code from the committee which has recently been appointed by the Royal and Ancient Golf Club.