A full discussion of the weaknesses of the rules as they exist would be neither possible nor desirable at present.- But one example may be taken as the text of a few remarks upon the subject. The hazard rule as it stands is the worst of all the St. Andrews regulations. It may, of course, be interpreted in such an extreme way as to make the game ridiculous. But even when taken in the broadest and most legitimate sense, its provisions are so unfair that here the interpretation of the executive committee is tantamount to a new rule. According to the law as it stands by itself, any player who touches sand in a bunker while addressing the ball is disqualified in medal play. Consequently, supposing that a competitor for the amateur championship in America, or the open championship abroad, were blown over by a gust of wind while aiming at the ball, or should for any other reason rest his club inadvertently upon the sand, he would at once be removed from the contest. Such a rule defeats its own ends, because it is never, as a matter of fact, adhered to, especially in the case of bent and gorse. The interpretation made by the association is probably as satisfactory as anything could be under the circumstances. But why should not the rule be altered and made more simple? First of all, nothing but sand or loose earth should be regarded as a hazard. That, of course, was the orig-inal intention of the rule. It is only in sand or loose earth that the player can possibly obtain any unfair advantage by grounding his club, or by moving loose obstacles. There is no possible reason why a loose stone should not be removed when the ball is lying in a gorse bush if it is allowable to remove one in the fair green. There is a very definite reason why a similar obstacle should not be removed in a bunker; because it is impossible to say in many cases where stones become small enough to be considered part of the sand. But on a good links there should be no stones whatever in any hazard, so that the break club question need hardly arise.

First of all, then, confine your hazards to sand and loose earth, and you will not only simplify matters, but you will be conforming in reality with the true spirit of the game. Secondly, make it a case for disqualification, or the loss of the hole, when a player deliberately removes anything in a bunker within a given radius of his ball. If a man is foolish enough to break the rules in a deliberate way, he deserves any punishment which may be meted out to him. But for grounding the club unintentionally or intentionally behind the ball in the act of addressing it the penalty of a stroke is quite sufficient. No one, however expert he may be, can calculate upon improving the lie of his ball in addressing it sufficiently to warrant the loss of a stroke, and the rule about intentional removal of obstacles would still prevent him from deliberately scraping away the sand with his club.

A rule written on these lines would provide ample punishment for carelessness, and it would also guard against the success of those players - and there are a few of them - who are always anxious to take every inch of rope that the law will concede.

This is only one case out of a great many where it is easy to suggest a good rule where the founders of the code seem to have gone out of their way to make a bad one. Instances might be multiplied if necessary. My main object at present is to show what advantages may accrue from the government of an executive committee which is entirely national in its interests, which is not hampered by any uncertainty about its authority or any traditions of the past, and which, above all, is a thoroughly representative body. The members of the executive committee are chosen not with reference to the club they represent, but on account of their personal fitness. There is only one criticism to be made upon the constitution of the association, and that applies to the distinction between allied and associate members, a distinction which seems to have no very good raison d'etre, and will in all probability be removed in the near future.