TMac,
I think the club minutes wording (Raynor is a leading gca) show that they hired him to be the gca, and hired White for his agronomic and construction experience. Those are the words from those minutes that jump out at ME. Now, as a pro, I am also sure he wanted and probably got some input, being there every day. It may be semantics, but there appears to be a gc design contract in place for Raynor whereas White was hired by the club to perform whatever duites came up, which included building a new golf course, or parts thereof.
That was pretty typical, it seems, in those days. The gca could get there even less often than now (although this was close to home for Raynor) and so a local pro or super with some construction experience took on the role of what would be the contractors field supervisor now, and was responsible for interpreting the plans (or plasticene models)
It appears that White had two experiences, both at clubs where he was also pro, and both were in renovations of existing cousres. I am sure it was a factor in him getting the North Shore job and they were glad to have him. But, I am under the impression that he used those two and this job as a springboard to his own career, which was not big in numbers, but good enough to become a charter member of ASGCA.
As to Raynor, CBM saw something in him in the first month or so of work at NGLA in 1907. He hired him full time based on his work, and he was obviously a quick study. CBM made him partner in 1915, and was obviously touting him at the time of NS as the lead designer, even if it predates the actual partnership. CBM wouldn't have made Raynor partner if he couldn't design. CBM is well known to have participated in only a few pet projects after his initial successess. If he wasn't the main driving force in those other designs, it had to be Raynor, no? And there is no doubt that Raynor benefitted by being associated with CBM's "star" in a star system (then and now)
No question the job got done and perhaps the problem lies in us trying to attribute years later by our own standards. There is no question that I am applying my experience to the situation, which has club pros, supers and a lot of others involved in the design, but with the gca of record getting the credit. The whole process was a lot less formal then, so it might be confusing, but I wonder if gca.com or some other interested historically inclined party ought to figure out a standard for attribubtion back in the old days?
Just look at the courses that have spurred the arguments, and your observations thereof (just an example, I could also use mine and as noted above, I think I know where they tend to be skewed) but this group debates whether:
..... a one day study of Merion by Barker or CBM constitutes design. Or whether hundreds of letters by Wilson regarding turf and agronomy means he was more of a construction guy only. You downplayed Wilson for design credit.
.......if the construction superintendent (and strong personality) of Burbeck should get any credit wih Tilly, who by contract had ten days of work at BP.....You downplayed Burbeck for credit
......if a jack of all trades like White (first PGA Pres, charter ASGCA member, and came to America to study agronomy) should get attribution at North Shore when Raynor had a contract for design? You are playing up White for credit (granting that he had two courses before this one that he was involved with, so its not that unreasonable, and he did go on to pretty nice career afterwards. But so did Wilson!)
Each of those cases is slightly different, to be sure. The tendency for most is to attribute the design to the most well known person. Your tendency is to try to find out more about who did what, which I admire, but I don't think we will ever know if White changed the plan for any particular green at North Shore, etc.
I doubt design contracts were as clear as they are now. All of which leaves us the same question - should the on site guy (White in this case) get co-design credit with the contracted designer? Or, for convenience, should we just have a category like "on site supervisor/designer?" With Ross, you would have lots of nearly co-credits, like Maples, etc. Ditto with most of the others who surely had some design input by shear virtue of being on site every day.
Even in modern times, I think there is a push to get the contractor and design associates recognized for their contributions, so its not out of the question and basically, it seems that is what you are trying to do for the "old days." I don't think anyone disagrees that White was involved here, and I propose the plan in an effort to save us the debate on every course of "who should get credit."
It could happen!
Then again, probably not!
Keep digging for history. I guess without the debate, it wouldn't be as interesting.....