Peary and all his biased helpers fixed as the crucial test of Polar
attainment an examination of field observations. Mr. Peary had his; he
had refused to let Whitney bring part of mine from the North; and,
therefore, he and his friends supposed that I was helpless, by assuming
this false position. But when Mr. Peary's own material was examined, it
was found that his position rested on a set of worthless
observations--calculations of altitudes of the sun so low that it is
questionable if the observation could have been made at all. So long as
three men, behind closed doors, could be made to say "Yes, Peary reached
the Pole," and so long as this verdict came with the authority of a
Geographic Society and the seeming endorsement of national prestige, the
false position could be impressed upon the pubic as a _bona-fide_
verdict. But, with publicity, the whole railroading game would be
spoiled. These three men could be influenced. But there are a hundred
thousand other men in the world whose lives depend upon their knowledge
of just such observations as were here involved. They knew publicity
would bring the attention of these men to the fact that Mr. Peary's
polar claim rests upon the impossible observations of a sun at an
altitude less than 7 deg. above the horizon. The three armchair geographers,
seldom out of reach of dusty book-shelves, passed upon these worthless
observations. Not one of one hundred thousand honest sextant experts
would credit such an observation as that upon which Mr. Peary's case
rests--not even in home regions, where for centuries tables for
corrections have been gathered.
[29]A year later, at the Congressional investigation of the Naval
Committee in Washington, Mr. Peary and two of his jurors admitted that
in the much-heralded Peary proofs "there was no proof." Members of the
Geographic Society acknowledged their "examination" of Peary's
instruments was made in the Pennsylvania Station, when they opened Mr.
Peary's trunk and casually looked over its contents. Therefore, Mr.
Peary's claim for a second victory now rests upon his book.
In forcing the controversy, the press and the public have come to the
conclusion that one or the other report must be discredited. This is an
incorrect point of view. Each case must be judged upon its own merits.
To prove my case, it is not necessary to disprove Peary's; nor, to prove
Peary's, should it have been necessary to try to disprove mine.
Much has been said about my case resting in foreign hands. This came
about in a natural way. It was not intended to convey the idea that my
own countrymen were incompetent or dishonest. In the case of the
National Geographic Society they have irretrievably prostituted their
name; but the same is not true of other American authorities.
When I came to Copenhagen, the Danish Geographic Society gave me a first
spontaneous hearing. The Copenhagen University honored me. It was,
therefore, but proper that the Danes should be the first to pass upon
the merits of my claim. While these arrangements were in progress, I met
Professor Thorp, the Rector of the University of Copenhagen, at the
American Legation. I did not know the purport of that meeting, nor of
his detailed, careful questions; but on the 6th of September appeared an
official statement in the press reports. In these it was stated that
the meeting had been arranged to satisfy the University authorities as
to whether the Pole had been reached. Among other things, Professor
Thorp said:
"As there were certain questions of a special astronomical nature with
which I myself was not sufficiently acquainted, I called in our greatest
astronomical scientist, Professor Stromgren, who put an exhaustive
series of mathematical, technical and natural scientific questions to
Dr. Cook, based particularly on those of his contentions on which some
doubts had been cast.
"Dr. Cook answered all to our full satisfaction. He showed no
nervousness or excitement at any time. I dare say, therefore, that there
is no justification for anybody to throw the slightest doubt on his
claim to have reached the Pole and the means by which he did it.
Professor Stromgren and I are entirely satisfied with the evidence."
I have always maintained that the proof of an explorer's doings was not
to be found in a few disconnected figures, but in the continuity of his
final book which presents his case. To this end I prepared a report,
accompanied by the important part of the original field notes and a
complete set of reduced observations. These were submitted to the
University of Copenhagen in December of 1909. The verdict on this was
that in such material there was no absolute proof of the attainment of
the Pole.
The Peary press agents were in Copenhagen, and sent this news out so as
to convey the idea that Copenhagen had denounced me; that, in their
opinion, the Pole had not been reached as claimed, and that I had hoaxed
the world for sordid gain; all of which was untrue. But the press
flaunted my name in big headlines as a faker.
"In the Cook data there is no proof," they repeated as the verdict of
Copenhagen.
A year later Mr. Peary and his jurors confessed unwillingly in Congress
that in the Peary data there was no proof.
This was reported in the official Congressional pamphlets, but, so far
as I know, not a single newspaper displayed the news. The two cases,
therefore, so far as verdicts go, are parallel.
Wearied of the whole problem of undesirable publicity; mentally and
physically exhausted; disgusted with the detestable and slanderous
campaign, which, for Mr. Peary, the press forced unremittingly, I
decided to go away for a year, to rest and recuperate. This could not be
done if I took the press into my confidence; and, therefore, I quietly
departed from New York, to be joined by my family later. Out of the
public eye, life, for me, assumed a new interest. In the meantime, the
public agitation was stilled. Time gave a better perspective to the
case; Mr. Peary got that for which his hand had reached. He was made a
Rear-Admiral, with a pension of $6,000 under retirement.
By the time I had resolved my case, I received through my brother,
William L. Cook, of Brooklyn, and my London solicitor, various offers
from newspapers and magazines for any statement I desired to make.
Because I had gone away quietly and remained in seclusion, the
newspapers had inflamed the public with an abnormal curiosity in my
so-called mysterious disappearance. This fact imparted a great
sensational value to any news of my public reappearance or to any
statement which I might make. Eager to secure a "beat," newspapers were
offering my brother as high as one thousand dollars merely for my
address. The New York newspaper which had led the attack against me sent
an offer, through my London solicitor, of any figure which I might make
for my first exclusive statement to the public. One magazine offered me
ten thousand dollars for a series of articles.
While in London I received a message from Mr. T. Everett Harry, of
_Hampton's Magazine_, concerning the publication of a series of articles
explaining my case. Mr. Harry came to London and talked over plans for
these. The opportunity of addressing the same public, through the same
medium, as Mr. Peary had in his serial story, strongly influenced me--in
fact, so strongly that, while I had a standing offer of ten thousand
dollars, I finally gave my articles to _Hampton's_ for little more than
four thousand dollars.
In order that _Hampton's Magazine_ might benefit by the publicity
attaching to my first statement, and in response to the editor's
request, I came quietly to the United States with Mr. Harry, by way of
Canada, to consult with the editor before making final arrangements. Mr.
Harry and I had agreed upon the outline for the articles. They were to
be a series of heart-to-heart talks, embodying the psychological phases
of the Polar controversy and my own actions. In these I determined fully
to state my case, explain the ungracious controversy, and analyze the
impossibility of mathematically ascertaining the Pole or of proving such
a claim by figures. The articles that eventually appeared in
_Hampton's_, with the exception of unauthorized editorial changes and
excisions of vitally important matter concerning Mr. Peary, were
practically the same as planned in London.
Coming down from Quebec, I stopped in Troy, New York, to await Mr.
Hampton, who was to come from New York. While there, a sub-editor, with
all a newspaper man's sensational instincts, came to see me. He
communicated, it seems, a brilliant scheme for a series of articles. As
he outlined it, I was to go secretly to New York, submit myself to
several employed alienists who should pronounce me insane, whereupon I
was to write several articles in which I should admit having arrived at
the conclusion that I reached the Pole while mentally unbalanced! This
admission was to be supported by the alienists' purchased report! This
plan, I was told, would "put me right" and make a great sensational
story!
When I was told of this I felt staggered. Did people--could they--deem
me such a hoax that, in order to obtain an unwarranted sympathy, or to
make money, I should be willing to admit to such a shameful, mad,
atrocious and despicable lie? I said nothing when the suggestion was
made. At heart, I felt achingly hurt. I felt that this newspaper man,
not hesitating at deceiving the public in order to get a sensation,
regarded me as a scoundrel. I was learning, too, as I had throughout the
heart-bitter controversy, the duplicity of human nature.
After a talk with Mr. Hampton, who finally arrived, and who, I am glad
to say, had no such suggestion himself to offer, I got to work on my
articles after the general plan spoken of in London. These were written
at the Palatine Hotel, in Newburgh. The articles finished, I returned to
London to settle certain business matter prior to my public return to
America by Christmas.
Imagine my amazed indignation when, shortly before sailing, the cables
brought the untrue news, "Dr. Cook Confesses." Imagine my heart-aching
dismay when, on reaching the shores of my native country, I found the
magazine which was running the articles in which I hoped to explain
myself, had blazoned the sensation-provoking lie over its cover--"Dr.
Cook's Confession."
I had made no confession. I had made the admission that I was uncertain
as to having reached the exact mathematical Pole. That same admission
Mr. Peary would have to make had he been pinned down. He did make this
admission, in fact, while his own articles, a year before, were being
prepared, in the _Hampton's_ office.
In order to advertise itself, the magazine employed the trick of
construing a mere admission of uncertainty as to the exact pin-point
attainment of the Pole as a "confession." To the public I had apparently
authorized this. The misrepresentation hurt me, and for a time placed me
in an unhappy dilemma.
Before the appearance of the January _Hampton's_, in which the first
instalment of my articles appeared, a series of press stories supposedly
based upon my forthcoming articles were prepared and sent out by the
sub-editor who had suggested the insanity plan. These were prepared
during the absence of Mr. Harry in Atlantic City. By picking garbled
extracts from my articles about the impossibility of a pin-point
determination of the Pole, and the crazy mirage-effects of the Arctic
world, these news-stories were construed to the effect that I admitted I
did not know whether I had been at the North Pole or whether I had not
been at the North Pole, and also that I admitted to a plea of insanity.
These stories were printed on the first pages of hundreds of newspaper
all over the country, under scareheads of "Dr. Cook Admits Fake!" and
"Dr. Cook Makes Plea of Insanity!"
In these reports, written by the sub-editor, he gave himself credit for
the "discovery" of Dr. Cook and the securing of his articles for
_Hampton's_. This claim for the magazine "beat" was as dishonest as his
handling of the press matter for _Hampton's_. My dealings with the
magazine were entirely through Mr. Harry, whose frankness and
fair-dealing early disposed me to give my story to the publication he
represented.
The widespread dissemination of the untrue and cruelly unfair
"confession" and "insanity-plea" stories dazed me. I felt impotent,
crushed. In my very effort to explain myself I was being irretrievably
hurt. I was being made a catspaw for magazine and newspaper sensation.
But misrepresentations do not make history. The American people cannot
always be hoodwinked. The reading public soon realized that my story was
no more a confession than the "Peary Proof Positive" instalment in
Hampton's had been the embodiment of any real Polar proofs.
Finding that it was impossible, in magazines and newspapers, to tell
the full truth; finding that what I did say was garbled and distorted, I
concluded to reserve the detailed facts for this book. There were truths
about Mr. Peary which, I suppose, no paper would have dared to print. I
have told them here. There were truths about myself which, because they
explain me, the papers, preferring to attack me, would not have printed.
I have told them here.
I climbed Mt. McKinley, by my own efforts, without assistance; I reached
the Pole, save for my Eskimos, alone. I had spent no one's money, lost
no lives. I claimed my victory honestly; and as a man believing in
himself and his personal rights, at a time when I was nervously unstrung
and viciously attacked, I went away to rest, rather than deal in dirty
defamation, alone. At a time when the tables seemed turned, when the
wolves of the press were desirous of rending me, I came back to my
country--alone.
I have now made my fight; I have been compelled to extreme measures of
truth-telling that are abhorrent to me. I have done this because,
otherwise, people would not understand the facts of the Polar
controversy or why I, reluctant, remained silent so long. I have done
this single-handedly. I have confidence in my people; more than that, I
have implicit and indomitable confidence in--Truth.
RETROSPECT
Returning from the North, in September, 1909, while being honored in
Copenhagen for my success in reaching the North Pole, there came, by
wireless from Labrador, messages from Robert E. Peary, claiming the
attainment exclusively as his own, and declaring that in my assertion I
was, in his vernacular, offering the world a "gold brick."
On April 21, 1908, I had reached a spot which I ascertained, with as
scientific accuracy as possible, to be the top of the axis around which
the world spins--the North Pole.
On April 6, 1909, a year later, Mr. Peary claimed to have reached the
same spot.
To substantiate his charge of fraud, Peary declared that my Eskimo
companions had said I had been only two sleeps from land. Why, he
further asked, had I not taken reputable witnesses with me on such a
trip?
I had taken, on my final dash, two expert Eskimos. Mr. Peary had four
Eskimos and a negro body servant.
Before launching further charges, Mr. Peary delayed his ship, the
_Roosevelt_, at Battle Harbor, on the pretext of cleaning it, that he
might digest my New York _Herald_ story, compare it with his own, and
fabricate his broadside of abuse. There he was in constant communication
with the New York _Times_, General Thomas Hubbard--president of the
Peary Arctic Club and financial sponsor of the "trust"--and Herbert L.
Bridgman. The _Times_, eager to "beat" the _Herald_, was desirous of
descrediting me and launching Peary's as the _bona-fide_ North Pole
discovery story. General Hubbard, Mr. Bridgman, and the "trust" were
eager for a publicity and acclaim greater than that which might attach
to any honorable second victor. Dishonor and perjury, to secure first
honors, were not even to be weighed in the balance.
When I arrived in New York, I was confronted by a series of technical
questions, designed to baffle me. These questions, I learned, had been
sent to the _Times_ by Mr. Peary with instructions that the _Times_ "get
after" me.
I answered these questions. I had answered them in Europe. Mr. Peary,
when he arrived at Sydney, and afterward, refused to answer any
questions. He continued simply to attack me, to make insinuations
aspersing my honesty, playing the secret back-hand game of defamation
conducted by his friends of his Arctic Club.
Why had I not, on my return from my Polar trip, told anyone of the
achievement, Mr. Peary asked in an interview, aiming to show that my
Polar attainment was an afterthought.
On my return to Etah I had told Harry Whitney and Pritchard. They, in
turn, told Captain Bob Bartlett. Captain Bartlett, as well as the
Eskimos, in turn told Peary at Etah that I claimed to have reached the
Pole. At the very moment when this charge was made, Peary had in his
pocket Captain Adams' letter which gave the same information. Why did
Mr. Peary suppress this information, convicting himself of insinuating
an untruth from three different sources to challenge my claim.
Returning from the North with the negro, Henson, and Eskimos, Mr. Peary
himself had not told his own companions on the _Roosevelt_ of his own
success. Why was this?
In a portentous statement Mr. Peary and his party declared my Eskimos
said I had not been more than two sleeps from land.
I had instructed my companions not to tell Peary of my achievement. He
had stolen my supplies. I felt him unworthy of the confidence of a
brother explorer. I had encouraged the delusion of E-tuk-i-shook and
Ah-we-lah that almost daily mirages and low-lying clouds were signs of
land, so as to prevent the native panic and desertion on the circumpolar
sea. They had possibly told this to Peary in all honesty; but other
natives also told him that we had reached the "Big Nail."
Why was the news to Mr. Peary's liking given, while that which he did
not like was ignored?
Not long ago, Matthew Henson, interviewed in the south, was quoted as
saying that Peary did not get to the Pole. In another interview he said
that Peary, like a tenderfoot, rode in a fur-cushioned sledge until they
got to a place which was "far enough." I still prefer to believe Peary
rather than Henson. Peary's Eskimo companions of a former trip
positively deny Peary's claimed discovery of Crocker Land. I still
prefer to believe that Crocker Land does deserve a place on the map.
Peary's last Eskimo companions say that he did not reach the Pole. But I
prefer to credit his claim. Mr. Peary's spirit has never been that of
fairness to others when a claim impinges upon his own. He has always
adopted the tactics of the claim-jumper.
In a like manner, and with similar intent, Mr. Peary had attacked many
explorers before me. To prevent his companions from profiting by their
own work, members of each expedition were forced to sign contracts that
barred press interviews, eliminated cameras, prohibited lecturing or
writing, or even trading for trophies. To insure Mr. Peary all the
honor, his men were made slaves to his cause.
In a quarrel which resulted from these impossible conditions, Eivind
Astrup was assailed. Broken-hearted, he committed suicide. Captain Otto
Sverdrup was made to feel the sting of the same grasping spirit. General
A. W. Greely has been unjustly attacked. All of this detestable
selfishness culminated in the treatment of Captain Bob Bartlett. When
the Pole, to Peary, seemed within reach, and the glory of victory was
within grasp, the ever-faithful Bartlett was turned back and his place
was taken by a negro, that Peary might be, to quote his own words, "the
only white man at the Pole."
When, on my return to New York, I found myself attacked by a man of this
caliber, I decided that the public, without any counter-defamation on my
part, would read him aright and see through the unscrupulous and
dishonest campaign. So I remained silent.
Coming down to Portland from Sydney, where he had landed, Mr. Peary gave
out an interview insinuating that I had had no instruments with which to
take observations. "Would Dr. Cook," he asked, "if he had had
instruments, have left them in the hands of a stranger (Harry Whitney),
when upon these depended his fame or his dishonor?"
On his return to this country, Mr. Whitney corroborated my statement of
leaving my instruments with him. Mr. Peary's own captain, who had
cross-questioned my Eskimos for Mr. Peary, later stated to two magazine
editors that my companions had described to him the instruments I had
had. Is it reasonable to suppose that Mr. Peary did not know of this? I
know that he knew. If he is an honest man, why did he stoop to this
dishonesty? Even if he believed me to be dishonest, dishonest methods
only placed him in the class of the one he attacked as dishonest.
By using the same underhand methods, as when he got the New York _Times_
to cross-question me for himself, Peary now got his friends of the
Geographic Society, who had boosted him, to call for "proofs." Such
proofs, it appeared, should always be presented before public honors
were accepted or the returns of a lecture tour considered. But Peary had
engaged in exploration for twenty years, and had always given lectures
at once, without ever offering proofs. I was asked to cancel lecture
engagements and furnish what Peary knew neither he nor anybody else
could furnish offhand. For the proof of an explorer's doings is his
final book, which requires months and years to prepare.
With much blaring of trumpets, the Peary "proofs" were submitted to his
friends of the National Geographic Society. With but a casual
examination of copies of data, claimed at the time to be original field
notes, with no explanation of the wonderful instruments upon which it
had been earlier claimed Polar honors rested, an immediate and
favorable verdict was rendered.
A huge picture was published, showing learned, bewhiskered gentlemen
examining the Peary "proofs," and reaching their verdict. Mr. Peary's
case for a rediscovery of the Pole was won--for the time. The public
were deceived into believing that positive proofs had been presented;
that the society, acting as a competent and neutral jury, was honest.
Later it was shown that its members were financially interested in Mr.
Peary's expedition, and still later it was admitted that the Peary
proofs contained no proof. All of this later development has had no
publicity.
In the meantime, I was attacked for delay. My data was finally sent to
the University of Copenhagen. A verdict of "Unproven" was rendered.
Thereupon, Mr. Peary and his friends at once shouted "Fraud!" The press
parrot-like re-echoed that shout. With this unfair insinuation there
came to me the biting sting of a burning electric shock as the wires
quivered all around the world. At the Congressional investigation, a
year later, the Peary data was shown to be useless as proof. It was a
verdict precisely like that of Copenhagen on mine, but the press did not
print it. Did the Peary interests have any control over the American
press or its sources of news distribution?
After the call for "proof" came charges, from members of the Peary
cabal, that I was unable to take observations. Mr. Peary was so much
better equipped than I to do so! Moreover, he had had the able
scientific assistance of Bartlett and--the negro.
When I was at the Pole the sun was 12 deg. above the horizon. At the time
Peary claims he was there it was less than 7 deg.. Difficult as it is to
take observations at 12 deg., because of refracted light, any accurate
observation at 7 deg. is impossible. It is indeed, questionable if an
observation could be made at all at the time when Peary claims to have
been at the Pole.
Finding that, despite all charges, the public believed in me, Mr. Peary,
through his cooeperators, attempted to discredit my veracity. An
affidavit, which was bought, as I have evidence to prove, was made by
Barrill to the effect that I had not climbed Mt. McKinley. The getting
of this affidavit is placed at the door of Mr. Peary.
Do honest men, with honest intentions, buy perjured documents?
Do honest men, believing in themselves, besmirch their own honor by
deliberate lying?
Dunkle and Loose came to me, offered to look over the observations in my
_Herald_ story, and--suddenly--to my amazement--offered a set of faked
observations, manufactured at the instigation of someone. I refused the
batch of faked papers, and turned the two nefarious conspirators out of
my hotel.
A comparison of my Copenhagen report with the Dunkle perjured story,
later printed in the New York _Times_, proves I used not one of their
figures. Mr. R. J. McLouglin later proved that the hand which signed
"Dunkle" also signed "Loose" to that lying document. It is, therefore,
not only a perjury, but a forgery.
Recently, Professor J. H. Gore, a member of the National Geographic
Society, and one of Peary's friends, acknowledged to Evelyn B. Baldwin
that he had in his possession the faked observations which were made by
Dunkle and Loose.