Chapter XXXI: Appendix: Copy of the Field Notes (2)

Of first importance also in proving the existence of new lands discovered by Cook is the evidence derived from the existence of animal life, since Arctic game clings close to the shore line in its search for food. Birds must find their nesting places on lands. Foxes live upon birds and the refuse left in the trails of polar bears and seals. Seals feed upon shrimps and find the chief source of food in waters close to the land. Polar bears in turn feed upon seals, and necessarily are found more numerously about lands or islands.

For this reason we will examine Peary's official narrative of his journey north for evidence of Dr. Cook's discovery of land to within 2 deg. of the North Pole. Having noted Dr. Cook's statement relative to the blow hole of a seal near Bradley Island, we will follow in Peary's trail for corroboration of Cook's journey eleven months previous, and a comparatively short distance westward of Peary's line of march. Referring to Peary's "North Pole" on page 249, while in latitude 85 deg. 48' he records:

"While we were engaged in this business we saw a seal disporting himself in the open water of the lead."

Still farther along, when in latitude 86 deg. 13', Peary states, on page 252: "Along the course of one of those leads we saw the fresh tracks of a polar bear going west."

ANIMAL TRAILS VERIFY COOK'S REPORT

Arctic travelers will well appreciate the force of this statement relative to the polar bear, who, scenting the land a few miles to the westward, was in search of seals. The freshness of the bear's tracks is proof that it had not drifted on some ice floe from remote parts of the Arctic basin.

Again, referring to page 257, we find that Peary while traveling through deep snow March 28, records: "During the day we saw the tracks of two foxes in this remote and icy wilderness, nearly two hundred and forty nautical miles beyond the northern coast of Grant Land."

It is worthy of note that Peary does not state just how far from the glacial or land ice upon the submerged island over which Cook traveled the fox tracks were. But it is evident that the foxes were less than two sleeps from land, since Peary states that Marvin's observation placed them in about latitude 86 deg. 38', the very latitude in which Cook traveled upon the stationary land ice.

Still again, page 307, while on his return march and near the 88th parallel Peary observes: "Here we noticed some fox tracks that had just been made. The animal was probably disturbed by our approach. These are the most northerly animal tracks ever seen."

Certainly. Why not? Since they were so near the northern termination of the land ice discovered by Dr. Cook. In this connection it is also important to remark that between latitude 88 and his approximate approach to the Pole, Dr. Cook makes no mention of animal life, and this is corroborated by Peary's own statement that he observed no tracks of animals beyond the 88th parallel. Thus Peary corroborated Cook by the very absence of animal life in the very region where Cook states he saw no land.

PEARY'S STATEMENTS PROVE COOK'S

On Peary's return journey he states that as they approached Grant Land the fresh tracks of foxes and other evidences of animal life were very numerous. And if the nearness of land was evidenced in this case it is also clear that the tracks and appearance of animals on his journey in the high latitudes should be given equal weight as evidence of the lands discovered by Cook.

The line of deep sea soundings taken by Peary from Cape Columbia northward indicates a steady increase in depth to latitude 84 deg. 24', where the lead touched bottom at eight hundred and twenty-five fathoms, until, in latitude 85 deg. 23', the sounding showed a depth of but three hundred and ten fathoms. Referring to this, we find that Peary says, on page 338 of his narrative: "This diminution in depth is a fact of considerable interest in reference to the possible existence of land to the westward."

It seems to me that it is not impertinent to remark that this land to the westward was scarcely two sleeps distant, as Dr. Cook has steadfastly maintained. Finally, on page 346, Peary says: "Taking various facts into consideration it would seem that an obstruction (lands, islands or shoals) containing nearly half a million square statute miles probably exists, and another at or near Crocker Land."

MORE ACCURATE OBSERVATIONS BY COOK THAN BY PEARY

And this is all that Dr. Cook claims in his location of land to the northward of the very Crocker Land to which Peary alludes.

As to Dr. Cook's and Peary's observations when in the immediate vicinity of the Pole, I would call attention to the following facts: Cook's determination by the sextant of the sun's altitude was made April 21, 1908; Peary's final observations were taken April 7 of the following year. The sun being thus two weeks higher at the time Cook made his observations, he was able to secure a more accurate series of altitudes, and this will have an important bearing in substantiation of his claims.

Considering the difficulty which Peary has had in proving whether he was at 1.6 miles from the Pole on the Grant Land side or the Bering Strait side, and whether he was ten or fifteen miles away, I think Dr. Cook was justified in saying that, although he believed he was at the North Pole, he is not claiming that he had been exactly at the pin-point of the North Pole. At any rate, it places Dr. Cook in the position of endeavoring to tell the truth.

In this connection I feel like replying to a criticism which Mr. Grosvenor, editor of the National Geographic Magazine, published over his own signature immediately following Dr. Cook's return from the Pole. "Cook's story reads like that of a man who had filled his head with the contents of a few books on polar expeditions and especially the writings of Sverdrup."

ARMCHAIR CRITICISMS UNFAIR

Now, since Sverdrup is a real navigator, having accompanied Nansen during his three years' drift on the Fram, and, following this, having himself organized and led an expedition during three years to the westward of Grinnell Land, in the course of which he discovered and charted, in 1902, Heiberg Land and contiguous islands (which, however, Peary charted four years later and named Jessup Land), I do not consider Mr. Grosvenor's armchair criticism of the writings of Capt. Sverdrup and of Dr. Cook quite in keeping with the principles of a square deal and fair play.

Among the reasons which Peary assigns for doubting Dr. Cook is one pertaining to the original records which Dr. Cook unwillingly left at Etah. The leaving behind of these papers, according to Peary, was merely a scheme on Cook's part, so that he might claim they had been lost or destroyed and thus escape being forced to produce them in substantiation of his claim. Recently, when I asked Dr. Cook about this, his reply was: "This does not sound very manly. If this was so in Peary's belief, why did he not bring them back? Here was absolute proof in his own hands. Why did he bury it?"

Armchair geographers and renegades may endeavor to discredit Dr. Cook, but the seals and polar bears and little foxes will bear testimony of unimpeachable character to substantiate his claims as the discoverer of the North Pole. The reading public will not forget that when Paul Du Chaillu, returning from his expedition to Africa, reported the discovery of the pigmies, he was denounced as a faker and a liar. For three years Du Chaillu, as he has told me himself, sought in vain to re-establish his credibility, and when at the end of that time he succeeded in bringing some of the pigmies and exhibiting them before the scientific bodies of the world, then the "doubting Thomases" were obliged to give him credit as the discoverer of the African dwarfs. The yellow press and sensation mongers will decry Dr. Cook as they did Du Chaillu, for some years to come, but Arctic explorers endorse him to-day.

Rear Admiral W. S. Schley, General A. W. Greely, Captain Otto Sverdrup, Captain Roald Amundsen, and all the world's greatest explorers have indorsed Dr. Cook.

I have seen Dr. Cook's original field notes, his observations, and the important chapters of his book, wherein his claim is presented in such a way that the scientific world must accept it as the record and the proof of the greatest geographic accomplishment of modern times.

Putting aside the academic and idle argument of pin-point accuracy--the North Pole has been honestly reached by Dr. Cook 350 days before anyone else claimed to have been there.

(Signed) EVELYN BRIGGS BALDWIN.

VERDICT OF THE GEOGRAPHIC HISTORIAN

DR. COOK'S RECORD IS ACCURATE IT IS CERTIFIED--IT IS CORROBORATED

HE IS THE DISCOVERER OF THE NORTH POLE

By EDWIN SWIFT BALCH

(From the N. Y. Tribune, April 14, 1913)

Which was it: Cook or Peary? Who discovered the North Pole? Everybody thought the question had been settled long ago, but now comes an eminent geographer and explorer, who says, over his name, that both got to the "Big Nail," and that it was the Brooklyn doctor who did it first. And in defense of his belief he cites chapter and verse, and uses Peary's own story to prove that his hated rival it was who first stood at the top of the earth, "where every one of the cardinal points is South."

The intrepid defender of Cook is Edwin Swift Balch, fellow of the Association for the Advancement of Science, member of the Wyoming Historical and Geological Society, the Franklin Institute, American Philosophical, American Geographical and Royal Geographical Societies, writer on arctic, antarctic geographical and ethnological topics for the learned societies of the world. Dr. Balch lives at No. 1412 Spruce street, Philadelphia, and the title of his book, just published by Campion & Co., of Philadelphia, is "The North Pole and Bradley Land."

"ALL TRAVELLERS CALLED LIARS"

"From time immemorial travellers have been called liars," says Mr. Balch in a chapter devoted to "travellers who were first doubted and afterward vindicated," and it is on this general assumption of their Munchausen-like proclivities that much of the weight of argument depends. But most of all the truthfulness of the doctor's assertion that on April 21, 1908, he and his two Eskimo boys, E-tuk-i-shook and Ah-we-lah, reached the goal and "were the only pulsating creatures in a dead world of ice," is shown by the fact that conditions reported by Cook as existing there were corroborated by Peary.

"The man who breaks into the unknown may say what he chooses and present such astronomical observations as he sees fit," says Mr. Balch, "but his proof rests on his word. But if the next traveller corroborated the discoverer, instantly the first man's statements are immeasurably strengthened.

"To solve such a problem as that of who discovered the North Pole, this comparative method seems to the writer the only one available. It is not a matter of belief, it is a matter of comparison and reasoning. It is not the evidence which Cook produces _which in itself alone could prove Cook's claims_. It is the geographical evidence offered by both Cook and Peary, which, when carefully compared, affords, in the writer's judgment, the only means of arriving at a conclusion. It is Peary's statements and observations which prove, as far as can be proved at present, Cook's statements."

ALL DISCOVERERS FIRST DOUBTED

The writer then mentions a score of the great discoverers and explorers of history who have been defamed and berated by their contemporaries, yet whose achievements have in time proved them to be truth tellers. Marco Polo, "greatest of mediaeval travellers, was generally discredited." Amerigo Vespucci "to this day remains under a cloud for things he did not do." Fernao Mendes Pinto, Nathaniel B. Palmer, Robert Johnson, James Weddell, von Drygalski, Nordenskjold, Bruce, Charcot, Dr. Krapf, Dr. Robmann, Du Chaillu, Stanley, Livingstone, Colter, all have been reviled as fabricators, yet all have been honored by those who came later, he says.

"There are three records of Dr. Cook's journey of 1908," says the writer. "Cook's first announcement was a long cablegram sent from Lerwick, Shetland Islands, and published in the 'New York Herald' of September 2, 1909. The full original narrative was sent immediately after this and published in the 'New York Herald' between September 15 and October 7, 1909, with the title 'The Conquest of the Pole.'

"_Both of these were written and sent before Cook could, by any possibility, have seen or heard of any of the results of Peary's last expedition._

The third record is Cook's book "My Attainment of the Pole," which is simply an enlargement on the earlier story.

COOK MUST HAVE BEEN FIRST

The point here emphasized is that Cook could not have had anything on which to base his description of conditions north of 83:20 north latitude, and as his description agreed with that later given by Peary, there could be no doubt that Cook was there first.

"The reason for this is that these statements can be based on nothing but Cook's own observations," says Mr. Balch, "for Cook started for Denmark from South Greenland before Peary started for Labrador from North Greenland, and therefore everything Cook stated or wrote or published immediately after his arrival in Europe must be based on what Cook observed or experienced himself.

"_Cook's original narrative stands on its own merits; it is the first and most vital proof of Cook's veracity, and yet it has passed almost unnoticed._

The points on which the two accounts, Cook's and Peary's, of conditions at 90 degrees north agree most fundamentally, and hence most definitely establish the truthfulness of Cook, are first the "account of the land sighted in 84:20 north to 85:11 north (Bradley Land). The second is the glacial land ice in 87-88 degrees north. The third is the account of the discovery of the North Pole and the description of the ice at the North Pole."

COOK'S THREE ACHIEVEMENTS

Cook's first great discovery, the writer holds, was Bradley Land, named after his friend and backer. This land, Cook declared, had a great crevasse in it, making it appear like two islands, the southerly one starting at 84:20 north. Peary made no mention of land north of 83:20 north.

"Whether there is land or water in the intervening sixty geographical miles is a problem," says the writer, "but in order to be perfectly fair to both explorers and to allow for errors in observation one might split the difference at 83:50 north and consider that latitude as a dividing line between the lands discovered respectively by Cook and Peary."

"The second important discovery of Cook's is the glacial land ice in 87 north to 87 north-88 north," says the writer. "A closely similar occurrence was observed by Peary on his 1906 trip in about 86 north, 60 west."

But the most important particular in which the two men agree, in the mind of Mr. Balch, is in their description of the ice at the pole. Cook reported that it was "a smooth sheet of level ice." The writer adds: "if that description of the North Pole is accurate, the writing of it by Cook, first of all men, on the face of it is proof that Cook is the discoverer of the North Pole."

THE SNOW WAS PURPLE

But not only was the ice at the pole smooth and level, but the snow there was "purple" in the story of Cook, a detail in which he is again borne out by Peary.

"Purple snow," says the writer, "is a linguistic expression, an attempt to suggest with words what Frank Wilbert Stokes has done with paints in his superb pictures of the polar regions. Hence," he says, "the use of the word 'purple' by Dr. Cook, who is not a trained artist, proves that he has the eye of an impressionist painter and that he is an extremely accurate observer of his surroundings....

That Cook's description is accurate is in the next place certified to by Peary. Peary corroborates Cook absolutely about conditions enroute to the North Pole; and Cook is corroborated by Peary, not only by what Peary saw, but by what Peary did. If there was anything in the Western Arctic between the North Pole and 87:47 north but 'an endless field of purple snows,' smooth and slippery, Peary could not have covered the intervening 133 geographical miles in two days and a few hours. Peary, therefore, from observation and from actual physical performance proves that Cook's most important statement is true."

The evidence is thus examined, step by step. The statements of the two men are compared, word by word, and this is the conclusion reached:

"In view of all these facts it becomes certain that Cook must have written his description of the North Pole from his own observations, for until Cook actually traversed the Western Arctic between 88 degrees north and the North Pole, and told the world the facts, no one could have said whether in that area there was land or sea, nor have stated anything of the conditions of its ice, with its unusual, perhaps unique, flat surface.

"But Cook, in his first cable dispatch, stated definitely and positively and finally that at the North Pole there was no land, but sea, frozen over into smooth ice, and Peary confirmed Cook's statements.

"Cook was accurate, and the only possible inference is that Cook was accurate because Cook knew; and the further inevitable conclusion is that since Cook knew, Cook had been at the North Pole."

(_Ed._) In personal letters Balch further says, "I have tried to look at it as if this were the year 2013, and all of us in heaven.... It is only a question of time till Dr. Cook is recognized as the discoverer of the North Pole."

FOR A NATIONAL INVESTIGATION

A REQUEST

By DR. FREDERICK A. COOK

For three years I have sought in various ways to bring about a National investigation of the relative merits of the Polar Attainment and the unjust propaganda of distrust which followed. Such an investigation would do no harm if the original work and the later criticism has been done in good faith. Why has it been refused? To take the ground that it is a private matter and that the Government has taken no official part in the Polar race is to assume a false position. The injustice of this evasive policy is brought out in my telegram to former President Taft--and again in my letter to President Wilson. To compel such an investigation and to appoint Arctic explorers as National experts has been my main mission on the platform. Much against my will I have been forced to adopt the usual political tactics of getting to the voters to force action by Congress and the official circles of Washington.

When in 1911 the bill was introduced in Congress to retire Peary as a Rear Admiral with a pension, I supposed that this would automatically bring about a thorough scientific examination of the merits of the rival Polar claims. And such an investigation I then believed would surely bring about the only reward I have ever claimed--The appreciation of my fellow countrymen. It was however, as I learned later, a bold Pro-Peary movement fostered by lobbyists whose conscience was eased by drippings from the Hubbard-Bridgeman Arctic Trust, but I still believed that the dictates of National prestige were such that the usual white-washing and rail-roading process could not be adopted in a question of such International importance. I did not begrudge Mr. Peary a pension if honest methods were pursued to adjust the bitterly fought contention in the eyes of the world. My friends made no protest in Congress. As matters progressed, however, I saw that such men as Prof. Willis Moore and others of his kind--men I had previously trusted as honest, really proved themselves, double-faced, political back-scratchers. Then I changed my tactics. When one's honor is bartered by thieves under the guise of friends--and when these thieves are part of a government from which justice is expected--Then one is bound to uncover the leprous spots of one's accusers. I am glad to note that Prof. Moore, the President of the National Geographic Society, has since been exposed as being too crooked to fit into a berth of the present administration. There are others whose long fingers have been in the Polar-pie who will also meet their fate as time exposes their flat-heads.

To call a halt on this National Humbug where only official chair-warmers and political crooks served as experts, I sent the following telegram to former President Taft:

COPY OF TELEGRAM SENT TO FORMER PRESIDENT TAFT

Omaha, Neb., March 4, 1911
The President--The White House,
Washington, D. C.

When you sign the Peary bill you are honoring a man with sin-soiled
hands who has taken money from our innocent school children. A part of
this money I believe was used to make Arctic concubines comfortable. I
am ready to produce others of the same opinion. Thus for twenty years
while in the pay of the navy, supplied with luxuries from the public
purse, Peary has enjoyed, apparently with National consent, the
privilege denied the Mormons.

There are at least two children now in the cheerless north crying for
bread and milk and a father. These are growing witnesses of Peary's
leprous character. Will you endorse it?

By endorsing Peary you are upholding the cowardly verdict of Chester,
Tittman and Gannett, who bartered their souls to Peary's interests by
suppressing the worthlessness of the material upon which they passed.
These men on the Government pay-roll have stooped to a dishonor that
should make all fair-minded people blush with shame. This underhanded
performance calls for an investigation. Will you close these dark
chamber doings to the light of justice?

In this bill you are honoring one, who in seeking funds for legitimate
exploration, has passed the hat along the line of easy money for
twenty years. Much of this money was in my judgment used to promote a
lucrative fur and ivory trade, while the real effort of getting to the
pole was delayed seemingly for commercial gain. Thus engaged in a
propaganda of hypocrisy he stooped to immerality and dishonor and
ultimately when his game of fleecing the public was threatened, he
tried to kill a brother explorer. The stain of at least two other
lives is on this man. This bill covers a page in history against
which the spirits of murdered men cry for redress.

Peary is covered with the scabs of unmentionable indecency, and for
him your hand is about to put the seal of clean approval upon the
dirtiest campaign of bribery, conspiracy and black-dishonor that the
world has ever known.

If you can close your eyes to this, sign the Peary bill.

(Signed) FREDERICK A. COOK

The telegram was received but not acknowledged--the Peary bill was signed. But the false assumption of Peary's "Discovery of the Pole" was eliminated from the bill. There is therefore no National endorsement of Peary; though he was given an evasive Old Age Pension which the newspapers quoted incorrectly as an official recognition of Peary's claim to polar priority.

I now appeal to President Wilson and the present administration to make some official endeavor to clear our National emblem of the stain of the envious Polar contention. To that end I have written the following letter:

AN APPEAL TO PRESIDENT WILSON

(COPY OF A LETTER)

Chicago, May 1, 1913

Honored Sir:

I appeal to you to forward a movement which will adjust in the eyes
of the world the contention regarding the rival Polar claims. The
American Eagle has spread its wings of glory over the world's top. It
would seem to be a National duty to determine officially whether there
is room for one or two under those wings.

The graves of our worthy ancestors are marks in the ascent of the
ladder of latitudes. Hundreds of lives, millions of dollars, have been
sacrificed in the quest of the Pole. The success at last attained has
lifted the United States to the first ranks as a Nation of Scientific
Pioneers. Every true American has quivered with an extra thrill of
pride with the knowledge that the unknown boreal center has been
pierced and that the stars and stripes have been put to the virgin
breezes of the North Pole. The unjustified and ungracious controversy
which followed has wounded our National honor; it has left a stain
upon our flag. Is it not, therefore, our duty as a Nation to dispel
the cloud of contention resting over the glory of Polar attainment?

I have given twenty years to the life-sapping task of Polar
exploration--all without pay--all for the benefit of future man.
Returning--asking for nothing, expecting only brotherly appreciation
of my fellow countrymen, I am compelled to face an unjust battle of
political intrigues by men in the pay of the Government. My effort now
is not for money nor for a pension, but to defend my honor and that of
my family. The future of my children demands an exposition of the
unfair methods of the arm-chair geographers in Washington. However,
I do not ask the administration to defend me or my posterity, but do
ask that the men who draw a salary from the National treasury be made
answerable for a propaganda of character assassination, among these
is Prof. Willis Moore and others of the so-called National Geographic
Society.

The National Geographic Society with Prof. Moore as President is
responsible for the false interpretation of the rival Polar claims.
This society is a private organization used mostly for political
purposes; for two dollars per year a college professor or a
street-sweeper becomes with equal facility a "national geographer."
It is, therefore, not "national" nor "geographic," and when this
society poses as a scientific body, it is an imposition upon American
intelligence, and yet it is this society, with the well-known
political trickery of Prof. Moore, which has attempted to decide for
the world the merits of Polar attainment. An investigation of the
wrong doings of this society will quickly bring to light the
injustice of the Polar controversy.

A commission of Polar explorers appointed by National authority will
end for all times the problem of the rival Polar claims. There is an
abundance of material on both sides by which such a commission could
come to a reasonable conclusion. The general impression that the Polar
contention has been scientifically determined is not true. There has
been no real investigation into either claim. Such an investigation
could only be made by Arctic explorers, and to bring about this end I
would suggest the appointment of an International Commission of such
men as General A. W. Greely, U. S. A., Captain Otto Sverdrup of Norway
and Professor Georges Lecointe of Belgium. Their decision would be
accepted everywhere. Greely and Sverdrup have each spent four years in
the very region under discussion, and Lecointe is the Secretary of the
International Bureau for Polar Research and also director of the Royal
Observatory of Belgium. Such men will render a decision free from
personal bias, free from National prejudice and their verdict will be
accepted by the Nations of the world.

Though I am an interested party I insist that my appeal is not
altogether a personal one. In the interest of that deep-seated
American sense of fair play, in the interest of National honor, in
the interest of the glory of our flag, it would seem to be a National
duty to have the distrust of the Polar attainment cleared by an
International commission.

Respectfully submitted,
(Signed) FREDERICK A. COOK
To the President,
The White House,
Washington, D. C.

Thousands of requests similar to those reproduced below have gone to various officials in Washington. Such appeals demand action.

Chicago, May 7, 1913
Mr. Josephus Daniels, Secretary of the Navy,
Washington, D. C.

Dear Sir:

Rear Admiral Peary wears the stripes of the Navy, he is drawing
a pension of $6,000.00 per year from the tax-payers--The National
dictates of honor compel such a man to be clean morally--honest
and upright officially. Dr. Cook has publicly made charges against
Peary which relegate this Naval Officer to the rank of a common
thief and degenerate. In his book, "My Attainment of the Pole,"
(Mitchell-Kennedy, N. Y.) there are specific charges made which call
for an investigation. These charges have remained unanswered for
three years--Why?

In the Polar controversy the flag has been dragged through muck, and
this dishonor seems to rest upon a man for whose actions you are
responsible.

The American people have a right to demand an investigation into the
intrigue of the Peary Polar Propaganda, and as one believing in
justice at the bar of public opinion, I ask that you take steps to
clear this cloud in the eyes of the world.

Respectfully,
FRED HIGH
Editor of _The Platform_,
The Lyceum and Chautauqua Magazine,
Steinway Hall, Chicago.

Chicago, May 22, 1913.
To Congressman James R. Mann,
Washington, D. C.

Dear Sir:

The conquest of the North Pole has lifted the United States to a first
position as a Nation of scientific pioneers. The controversy which
followed is a blot on our flag and it is a slur at our National honor.
From the Government purse and from private resources we have spent
millions to reach the top of the earth; it would appear therefore to
be our duty as a Nation to adjust the Polar contention in the eyes of
the world.

If Dr. Cook has reached the Pole, a year earlier than Peary, as most
Arctic explorers believe, then the seeming endorsement and the pension
of the Naval officer is an injustice to Dr. Cook and an imposition on
the public; if both have reached the Pole then there should be a
suitable recognition and reward extended to each. As one of thousands
of American citizens, I beg of you to forward a movement which will
bring about a National investigation into this problem, with a
suitable provision for a proper recognition.

Respectfully,
CHARLES W. FERGUSON,
Pres.,
The Chautauqua Managers Association,
Orchestra Bldg., Chicago.

CAN THE GOVERNMENT ESCAPE THE RESPONSIBILITY?

BY FRED HIGH

While the Danes were royally entertaining Dr. Cook on September 4th, 1909, telegrams were being showered upon him by all the world. The King of Sweden sent this message:

"A BRILLIANT DEED, OF WHICH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE MAY RIGHTLY BE PROUD."

The American minister to Denmark made Dr. Cook's visit state business and joined in the effort to share Cook's honors. Dr. Cook paused in the midst of all this splendor to cable the following message to our President:

Copenhagen, Sept. 4, 1909.
President,
The White House, Washington.

I have the honor to report to the chief magistrate of the United
States that I have returned, having reached the North Pole."

To which President Taft cabled the following reply:

Beverly, Mass., Sept. 4, 1909.
Frederick A. Cook,
Copenhagen, Denmark.

Your dispatch received. Your report that you have reached the North
Pole calls for my heartiest congratulations, and stirs the pride of
all Americans that this feat which has so long baffled the world has
been accomplished by the intelligent energy and wonderful endurance
of a fellow countryman."
WILLIAM H. TAFT.

Was President Taft speaking for the American people when he called Dr. Cook's achievement the pride of all Americans? Were we ready to share Cook's joys? Share his honors? If so, then in all fairness, should we not share in his trials and tribulations? Are we like the crazy base ball fan who cheers a pitching hero when he wins and insults him with all kinds of vile epithets when he loses?

For one I shared in that thrill of pride and was glad to know that I had had dealings with Dr. Cook before he went in search of the Pole, consequently, I felt in honor bound to withhold any hasty criticisms that I might feel tempted to hurl at Dr. Cook. All who joined in his praises should insist upon it that he be given a chance to disprove every charge that has been brought against him, that he be given a chance to explain his every act before we join in the cry to crucify him. "Crucify him, or give us the most contemptible coward, moral leper and political crook that has lived in our time," if Dr. Cook's charges are true.

Believing that this is a matter that ought to be fairly settled by competent and orderly methods, I have written to several congressmen and senators, and the following correspondence speaks for itself:

Chicago, Illinois, May 7, 1913.
Hon. Wooda N. Carr,
Washington, D. C.

Dear Sir:

I wish to ask a personal favor of you, one that I think the public is
interested in and one that I think the world ought to know more about.
It is the Cook-Peary controversy. I have given this considerable
thought and study. I have heard Dr. Cook lecture a number of times and
have talked to him personally and tried to find out from every angle
the facts as to whether or not his story is true. So far I have been
unable to find a flaw in any of his statements, and Mr. Peary by his
actions has given every evidence that Dr. Cook is telling the truth.
Therefore, as a citizen who is interested in the larger affairs of
this country, and as the editor of The Platform, which is devoted to
the Lyceum and Chautauqua movement, I am asking whether or not it
would be compatible with fair play and our sense of justice and real
national dignity to take this controversy out of the hands of
individuals and settle it by an official tribunal, or by a commission
of arctic explorers.

I shall be very glad, indeed, if you will inform me of what steps
could best be taken to bring about the settlement of this controversy.
If there are any authoritative facts developed along this line, I will
be glad to know where to locate them as my sole object is to learn the
truth.

Under separate cover I am sending you copy of The Platform which
contains Doctor Cook's letter to President Wilson, which I hope you
will read.
Yours very truly,
(Signed) FRED HIGH.

House of Representatives, U. S.
Washington, D. C., May 13, 1913.
Mr. Fred High,
602 Steinway Hall,
Chicago, Ill.

Dear Sir:

Your letter of the 7th inst., regarding the Cook-Peary controversy,
received. I do not think it would be possible to get Congress to
interfere in this matter. It is a question of little concern to many
who discovered the Pole, or whether it was discovered at all. It seems
to be a personal matter, the settlement of which should be determined
by the persons interested.
Very truly yours,
(Signed) WOODA N. CARR.

Is it a matter of no concern whether or not the North Pole has been discovered? Is it a matter of no concern whether a man can fake a story about having discovered the North Pole, receive the homage of the world, fleece the American public out of thousands of dollars for fees to hear his lecture and go unpunished? If Dr. Cook has hoaxed the world as so many have charged him with having done, this is more than a private matter.

If Dr. Cook has discovered the North Pole, are we acting the part of fellow countrymen by shirking our duty? Shall Congress say that the clique at Washington either make good its charges against Dr. Cook, or be made to retract and stand disgraced in the eyes of the world? We shared Cook's honors. Will we shirk when he calls upon his countrymen for a square deal?

The following letter was received from Senator Miles Poindexter and should be carefully studied:

United States Senate, Committee on Expenditures in the War Department.

Washington, D. C. May 9, 1913.
Mr. Fred High, Editor,
The Platform, 602 Steinway Hall,
64 E. Van Buren St.,
Chicago, Illinois.

My dear Mr. High:

I have yours of 7th inst., and was very much pleased to know that you
are interested in securing a fair examination, officially if possible,
into Dr. Cook's claims of discovery.

Ever since the Cook-Peary controversy began, I have paid more or less
close attention to the questions involved therein. I have talked with
a number of residents around the neighborhood of Mt. McKinley, Alaska,
some of whom are friendly and some unfriendly to Dr. Cook; have read
with great care Dr. Cook's book describing his polar expedition; and
have followed through the newspapers and otherwise the various phases
of the controversy and happenings in connection therewith. As a
lawyer, I have always been especially interested in the study of the
credibility of witnesses, the weight of evidence; and in deducing
logical conclusions therefrom. From the careful consideration of the
comparative character of the witnesses for and against Dr. Cook, their
motives, and the attitude and hearing throughout the controversy of
Cook and Peary themselves, I have a very fixed and firm conviction
that Dr. Cook's story is true. I believe the majority of the people of
the country who are interested in the subject are of the same opinion.

From my observation of the miserable petty cliques and factional
squabbles in official circles of the Government, such for instance
as the Sampson-Schley controversy and innumerable smaller disputes,
I have long ago ceased to accept, as necessarily correct, official
evidence merely because it is official.

I have not yet seen a copy of The Platform containing Dr. Cook's
letter to President Wilson which you say you are forwarding me under
separate cover, and when received will read it with much interest.
Not having read it, I do not know just what plan Dr. Cook proposes for
an official investigation. I will be glad however, to learn the basis
upon which it is proposed to make the test an official investigation.
It occurs to me that it is entirely a private matter and that the
Government officially has nothing to do with it. Every man has as much
right as any other man to form a conclusion in the case; public
opinion, if the facts can be presented to the public, is the best
judgment. I would be apprehensive of submitting the absolute
determination of the question to an official tribunal for the reasons,
among others, which I have mentioned above. However, will be glad to
learn further as stated of the proposal.

With kind regards.
Very truly yours,
(Signed) MILES POINDEXTER.

Senator Poindexter's letter is a stricture on official Washington that ought to cause every true patriot to blush with shame. Are we at the point where even an impartial investigation can not be had into the controversy as to who discovered the North Pole?

There are thousands who believe this is a question that touches our national honor and therefore is a rightful subject for a Congressional Investigation. Those who believe this, ought to write to their representatives at Washington and urge such action as will lay the facts before the world.

* * * * *

The following letter from Hon. Champ Clark is worthy of much consideration as it reveals the real status of this controversy as it exists in official circles.

Dr. Cook is a private citizen with no Cook Arctic club to back him and share his gains. No National Geographical Society helped to finance his venture with the hope of managing his lectures as a sort of bureau graft. He is a private citizen.

Speaker Clark's letter furnishes us with the reason for asking Congress to take a hand in this affair for it shows how ready our statesmen are to give ear when the people speak:

THE SPEAKER'S ROOM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

WASHINGTON, D. C.

May 10, 1913.
Mr. Fred High,
Editor of The Platform,
Chicago, Illinois.

My dear Mr. High:

I have your letter touching the Cook-Peary controversy. I note what
you say. I do not see clearly what it is that you are suggesting. That
is, whether you want Congress to formulate some plan to determine the
matter by appointing a commission of Arctic explorers, or exactly what
it is that you do want.

Of course, I do not know very much about Arctic explorations and do
not set a very high store on them as I never could understand what
sort of good would come of locating the North Pole. I am a good deal
of a utilitarian, and am a disciple of the Baconian philosophy rather
than of the philosophy of Aristotle and the Greek school. To tell the
truth, I have always had a hazy sort of an idea that both Cook and
Peary discovered the North Pole. I have not valued my opinion highly
enough to undertake to exploit it or to induce anybody else to believe
it as I have enough other matters on hand to employ the time and
attention of one man.

Wishing you success, I am
Your friend,
(Signed) CHAMP CLARK

The following opinion of the men on the Chautauqua platform is attributed to our good friend from Missouri:

"The Chautauqua has been a powerful force in directing the political
thought of the country, which is largely sociological in these
latter days. I approve the Chautauqua lecturers, with whom I have
been associated, because they constitute as fine a group of men and
women as can be found among the splendid citizenship of America. I
have a deep and abiding interest in them, and bid them a hearty
godspeed in their work."

Dr. Cook is perhaps the leading Chautauqua lecturer of the present season. He is now booked to appear at seventy Chautauquas this Summer and it is certain that even the genial Speaker of the House wouldn't want to associate with a man who would hoax the world for gain. Certainly he wouldn't want "The greatest liar of the Century" to be one of the powerful forces directing the political thoughts of the Century. If Dr. Cook discovered the North Pole he should be given the credit for that great achievement.

We certainly have a right to see to it that neither Dr. Cook nor Mr. Peary are treated as though they were the scum of the earth. Dr. Cook has brought charges against Mr. Peary as a Naval officer. He still brings these charges, and he should be made to prove them. Peary, an officer of the Navy, has brought charges against Cook and he should be made to prove them.

Mr. Peary is an officer of our navy, drawing an old age pension. His position is such that he cannot ignore Dr. Cook's open charges. He is honor bound to protect the good name of this great country by asking an investigation of these charges. To remain silent, is to stand to be branded as the arch-degenerate of our day. Don't forget it was he who opened up the mud batteries and caused this undignified controversy.

No honorable man can allow such open charges of gross immorality as Dr. Cook preferred against Mr. Peary in his telegram to President Taft. These have been printed in magazines and newspapers as well as appearing in Dr. Cook's books, now in the sixtieth thousand edition.

Here in Illinois press stories of improper conduct implicating Lieutenant-Governor Barrett O'Hara were circulated and he immediately asked the state legislature to investigate them. The legislature appointed a committee that took testimony and reported these stories were groundless and false.

Is a retired Admiral less important in the eyes of the world than the Lieutenant-Governor of Illinois, or has the "old tar" taken an immunity bath?

Are we any farther along than were those who put Columbus in chains and stoned the Prophets and nailed the Christ to the Cross? Are we so engrossed in the material things that all questions of honor are of no concern to us?

It is true that the bar of public opinion is the court of last resort in a real democracy, but it is equally true that it is essential to see that the source of public opinion be not polluted. Should our school children be taught that Peary discovered the Pole if Dr. Cook was there first?

Senator Robert M. LaFollette says: "You can't buy, you can't subsidize the Lyceum. At least, it never has been done. The Press has been subsidized. Papers and magazines which were printing the bad records of public officials and political parties have, in many instances, been forced out of the field or silenced. Special privilege organized as a System has its own press.

But the Lyceum platform is free. Really, I sometimes think that, from the days of Wendell Phillips to now, the Lyceum has pretty nearly been the salvation of the country."

The Lyceum and the Chautauqua have given Dr. Cook a fair hearing, and it is now a matter of National pride that when the press was silent or hostile, Congress indifferent, the Chautauqua, the one distinctively American institution, gave him an honest, impartial hearing.

* * * * *

I write as I do because, being the editor of The Lyceum and Chautauqua Magazine, I have tried to give Dr. Cook the same opportunity to present his case as I would expect him to do by me were I in his place and he in mine.

AFTER YOU HAVE READ THIS BOOK KINDLY WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMAN CALLING FOR AN INVESTIGATION.

INDEX

Acpohon, Trail Along, 183;
"The Land of Guillemots," 191

Acponie Island, 50

Adams, Captain, 458;
Peary Suppressed Letter Presented by, 459, 487, 489

Advance Bay, 106

Ah-tah, Turns Away Ma-nee, 58

Ah-we-lah, Told Bartlett That Observations Were Made, 13, 189;
Chosen for Dash to Pole, 196;
Sure of Nearness of Land, 225, 230, 269, 270, 284, 293, 307, 327,
335;
Prevents Boat From Sinking, 366, 385, 399;
Recounts Remarkable Journey to the Pole, 452

Ahwynet, 96

Alaskan Wilds, 29

Alexander, Cape, 65, 117, 122, 152

Al-leek-ah, 95

American Legation, 469

Amund Ringnes Land, 329

Anderson, Mr., 460

Annoatok, 25;
Supplies Stored at, 30;
Started for, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71;
First Day at, 75;
Erected a House of Packing Boxes at, 76, 79, 83, 84, 85, 104, 110,
117, 152, 157, 194, 195, 226, 312, 336, 379, 437, 442, 443,
447, 451, 456

Antarctic Exploration, 28

Arctic, Bradley, Expedition, 24, 27

Arctic Circle Crossed, 34

Armbruster, Professor W. F., Defense of Dr. Cook by, 490

Armour of Chicago, Food Supplies by, 135

Arthur Land, 191

Ashton, J. M., 526, 530

Astrup, Eivind, Death of, 38, 511, 515, 560

Atholl, Cape, Sailed Around, 46

Auckland, Cape, 60

Auks, 62

Auroras, 112

Axel Heiberg Land, 193, 194, 201, 212, 246, 327, 329, 333

Bache Peninsula, Headed for, 158, 435

Baffin's Bay, 362

Baldwin, Captain Evelyn B., 135, 540, 564

Baldwin-Zeigler, Cache of Supplies Left by, 203

Bancroft Bay, 103

Bangor, 483

Barrill Affidavit, 13, 14, 522, 523, 524

Bartlett, Capt. Robt. A., Learns from Eskimos That Observations Were
Made, 13;
Assisted Peary in His Lies, 485, 558, 560, 562.

Bathurst Land, 337

Battle Harbor, Arrival at, 31;
Questions Prepared by Peary at, 483, 489, 557

Bay, Baffin's, 362;
Bancroft, 103;
Braebugten, 358, 377;
Buchanan, 77;
Cannon, 162;
Dallas, 103, 104;
Flagler, 154, 161, 168;
Melville, 38;
Entered, 39, 42, 44, 45;
North Star, 46;
Anchored in, 50, 462;
Olrick's, 59, 63;
Pioneer, 314;
Robertson, 63;
Sontag, 451

Bay Fiord, Overland to, 162, 168

Bear Hunting, 177, 184, 189, 432

Belcher Point, Passed, 361, 362

Belgian Antarctic Expedition, 28, 497

Belle Isle, Straits of, Entering, 31

Bennett, James Gordon, Cable to, 464, 465;
Selling Narrative Story to, 491, 492, 493

Bernier, Captain, 448, 516

Berri, Herbert, 502

Berry, Robert M., 478

"Big Lead," Peary's Eskimos Become Panic-Stricken at, 11;
Dr. Cook Reaches the Shores of, 217;
Crossing the, 221, 222, 224, 250

"Big Nail," 85, 243

Blethen, J., 527

Bonsall Island, 106

Booth Sound, 453

Borup, George, 485, 486

Bradley, John R., Compact Made for Expedition, 24;
Expedition, 29;
Join Party, 31;
Called to Action, 51;
Assumed Direction, 53;
Shoots Duck, 54, 537

"_Bradley, John R._," S. S., Sailed July 3, 1907, 23;
Going Northward, 28;
Aboard the, 30;
Sailing Qualities of the, 31

Bradley Land, 246, 249;
Positive Proof of, 251

Braebugten Bay, 358, 377

Breton, Cape, 30

Bridgeford, 527

Bridgman, Herbert L., Kitchen Explorer, 13, 77, 78, 502, 529, 557

Bridges, Thomas, Yahgan Dictionary, 497, 498

Brooklyn Dairy Business, 27

Brooke's Island, 106

Brown, Belmore, 524

Buchanan Bay, 77

Bushwick Club, 481

Cairn Point, Passed, 68

Camped for the Winter, 393

Cannon Bay, 162

Cannon Fiord, 203

Cape Alexander, Passed, 65, 117, 122, 152;
Athol, Sailed Around, 46;
Auckland, 60;
Breton, 30;
Clarence, 429;
Faraday, 429, 430;
Hatherton, 167;
Inglefield, 68;
Isabella, 428;
Louis Napoleon, 435;
Paget, 428;
Parry, 59;
Robertson, Proceeded to, 61, 62;
Rutherford, 159;
Sabine, Note Left at, 149, 150, 154, 157, 158, 161, 336, 426, 431;
Tragedies of, 433, 434;
Seiper, 103;
Sheridan, 78;
Sparbo, 344, 355, 357, 363, 364, 377, 378, 413, 497;
Tennyson, 427, 428, 429;
"Thomas Hubbard," 201;
Veile, 154, 161;
Vera, 343, 352, 353;
York, 44, 454, 455

Cardigan Strait, 350

Caribou Hunting, 109

Chester, Rear-Admiral, 502, 543, 544

Christiansaand, 476

Clarence, Cape, 429

Coast and Geodetic Survey, 488

Coburg Island, 428

Cold, Director, 477

Columbus, Christopher, 7

Conger, Fort, Party Left by Peary to Die of Cold and Hunger at, 454

Congress, Investigation of, Admission of Peary Witnesses in, 15, 18,
547

Contracts, Book, 494

Controversy, Polar, 5

Cook, Mrs., 478

Copenhagen, 12, 15, 244, 465, 466, 476, 479, 482, 494, 497, 538, 539,
540, 549, 550, 551, 557, 563

Copenhagen, University of, 549, 562

Cornell University, 485

Crocker Land, 226, 490, 559

Crown Prince Gustav Sea, 329, 336

Crystal Palace Glacier, 451

Dahl, Charles, 456

Dallas Bay, 103, 104

Danes, Hospitality of the, 515

Danish Literary Expedition, 453, 515

Davis Straits, Entered, 31

Dedrick, Dr., Harshly Treated by Peary, 434, 454, 515

De Gerlache, 134

"Devil's Thumb," 456

Dial Shadow, at the Pole, 308

Disco, Island of, Sighted, 34

Dundas Island, 337

Dunkle, Faked Observations of, 15, 535;
Introduced to, 536, 537, 538, 539, 540, 563

Dunkle-Loose Forgery, Explanation of, 355

Egan, Dr., 465, 469, 470, 494

Eggedesminde, 462;
First Banquet in Honor of Discovery of the Pole at, 463, 466

Eidsbotn, Descended to, 343

Ellef Ringnes Land, 329

Ellesmere Land, 71;
the Promised Land, 101, 191, 344

Elsinore, 466

Endor, 2

Equipment, Examination of, 149

Eric the Red, 33

"_Erik_," S. S., Peary Supply Ship, 443, 449, 451, 515

Eskimos, Delusions of, 11;
Testimony of, 12, 34;
Married Life Among the, 48;
Tents, 49;
Bargaining, 49;
Study of Walrus Habits, 52;
Customs Pertaining to Children, 54;
Romance, 55;
Have No Salutation, 61;
Equality of Children and Dogs to the, 63;
Prosperity Measured by the Number of Dogs, 68;
Engaged in Request of Reserve Supplies, 85;
Making Clothes, 90;
Gloom When the Long Night Begins, 92;
Mourning for the Dead, 95;
Dancing, 97;
Joy in Killing a Bear, 108;
Christmas Festivities, 137;
Ice Cream, 137;
the Coming of the Stork to the, 142;
Love for Children, 145;
Belief in Shadows, 180;
Show Anxiety, 206;
Questioned by Peary, 206;
Comedies and Tragedies of the, 322;
Weird Customs of the, 399;
Describe Trip to Pole, 452;
Hostility to Peary, 454;
Put Through the Third Degree by Peary, 488;
Put on Board Peary's Ship Against their Will, 514

Etah, 13;
Steered for, 64;
Landing Difficult at, 69, 70;
Eskimos Return to, 206, 312, 448, 449, 451, 558

E-tuk-i-shook, 12;
Told Bartlett That Observations Were Made, 13;
Sights Bears, 183;
Chosen for Dash to Pole, 196, 293;
Sure of Nearness to Land, 225, 230, 270, 279, 284, 293, 307, 327,
335;
Kills a Walrus, 373, 381;
Secures a Hare, 384;
An Adept With a Sling Shot, 399;
Recounts Remarkable Journey to the Pole, 452.

Eureka Sound, Reached, 102, 183, 192

Explorers' Club, 529

Faraday, Cape, 429, 430

Faroe Islands, 464

Fenker, Governor, 36

Fiala, Anthony, 478, 536

Fiord Umanak, Reached, 38;
Bay, Overland to, 162, 168;
Snag's, 193;
Cannon, 203;
Musk Ox, 343;
Talbot's, 429

Floundering in the Open Sea, 231

Flagler Bay, Advance Supplies Sent to, 154, 161, 168

Foulke Fiord, Entered, 66

Fox, Arctic, 398

Francke, Rudolph, 25;
Selected as Companion to Dr. Cook, 72, 73, 79;
Hunting, 89, 90;
Meat Gathered and Dried in Strips by, 114;
Prepared a Feast, 147, 148;
Asked to Join Party, 153, 155;
Remained in Charge of Supplies at Annoatok, 204;
in Starving Condition Refused Bread and Coffee by Peary, 442;
Compelled by Peary to Turn Over Furs and Ivory, 443, 517

Franklin Bay Expedition, Lady, 158

Fridtjof Nansen Sound, 315, 327

Game, Captured, 100

Gannett, Henry, 544

"Gates of Hades," 66

Gilder, Richard Watson, 112

Glacier, Crystal Palace, 451;
Humboldt, 45, 100, 106, 109;
Petowik, Sighted, 45

Gloucester, 23

"_Godthaab_," S. S., Supply Ship, 461

Godhaven, Sheltered in, 36, 37

Goggles, Amber-Colored, Used to Protect the Eyes, 226

"Gold Brick," Slurs, 39

Gore, Professor, 540, 563

Gramatan Inn, 535

Grand Republic, 479, 480

Grant Land, 191, 212, 214, 215, 226

Great Iron Stone, 513

Greely Expedition, Camp of, 158;
Peary Throws Discredit Upon the, 433, 515

Greely, General A. W., 168, 544, 560

Greely River, 168