corroboration of Cook's discovery of Bradley Land and the glacial island
north of it, but also seems to indicate the existence of islands farther
west between the same parallels of latitude.
Referring to page 250, when beyond the 86th parallel, Peary says: "In
this march there was some pretty heavy going. Part of the way was over
some old floes, which had been broken up by many seasons of unceasing
conflict with the winds and tides. Enclosing these more or less level
floes were heavy pressure ridges over which we and the dogs were obliged
to climb." In other words, the floes which Peary describes in this part
of his journey clearly indicate that they were just such floes as one
would expect to find after having passed through a group of islands,
and, therefore, contrasting naturally with the immense size of the floes
which both Cook and Peary traversed north of the 88th parallel.
Beginning with page 258, we have a most instructive description by Peary
of the ice between the parallels wherein Cook locates the glacial ice
and upon which he traveled for two days. It is such ice as one would
expect to find after having passed around the north and south ends of an
island from forty to sixty miles to the westward. This particular area
Peary designates as a veritable "Arctic Phlegethon," and it is
inconceivable to believe in this Phlegethon without also believing in
the existence of the glacial ice, as located and described by Dr. Cook.
Let us, therefore, examine Peary's narrative minutely. He says, on page
259, "When I awoke the following day, March 28, the sky was apparently
clear; but, ahead of us, was a thick, smoky, ominous haze drifting low
over the ice, and a bitter northeast wind, which, in the orthography of
the Arctic, plainly spelled 'Open Water'...."
Also, on the same page: "After traveling at a good rate for six hours
along Bartlett's trail, we came upon his camp beside a wide lead, with a
dense black, watery sky to the northwest, north and northeast."
Again, on page 260: "... The break in the ice had occurred within a foot
of the fastening of one of my dog teams, ... Bartlett's igloo was moving
east on the ice raft, which had broken, and beyond it, as far as the
belching fog from the lead would let us see, there was nothing but black
water."
Finally, on page 262, Peary says: "This last march had put us well
beyond my record of three years before, probably 87 deg. 12'. The following
day, March 29, was not a happy one for us. Though we were all tired
enough to rest, we did not enjoy picnicing beside this Arctic Phlegethon
which, hour after hour, to the north, northeast and northwest, seemed to
belch black smoke like a prairie fire.... Bartlett made a sounding of
one thousand two hundred and sixty fathoms, but found no bottom."
In the foregoing we have positive proof that this almost open water area
was not caused by shoals at that immediate point.
Peary's concern as regards this big hole in the ice-pack is set forth
further on page 265, as follows: "The entire region through which we had
come during the last four marches was full of unpleasant possibilities
for the future. Only too well we knew that violent winds, for only a few
hours, would send the ice all abroad in every direction. Crossing such a
zone on a journey north is only half the problem, for there is always
the return to be figured on. Though the motto of the Arctic must be
'Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof,' we ardently hoped there
might not be violent winds until we were south of this zone again on the
return."
From this it is apparent that Peary realized fully the permanent
character of this Phlegethon over which he was traveling. With
astonishing persistency, he refers again and again to this particular
locality. Quoting from page 303, when on his return march, he says:
"There was one region just above the 87th parallel, a region about
fifty-seven miles wide, which gave me a great deal of concern until we
had passed it. Twelve hours of strong wind blowing from any quarter
excepting the north would have turned that region into an open sea. I
breathed a sigh of relief when we left the 87th parallel behind."
And, as though the Phlegethon had not already been sufficiently
described, on page 307 we find recorded: "Inspired by our good fortune
we pressed on again completing two marches, and when we camped we were
very near the 87th parallel. The entry that I made in my diary that
night is perhaps worth quoting: 'Hope to reach the Marvin Igloo (86 deg.
38') to-morrow. I shall be glad when we get there on to the big ice
again. This region here was open water during February and the early
part of March and is now covered with young ice which is thoroughly
unreliable as a means of return. A few hours of a brisk wind east, west,
or south, would make this entire region open water for some fifty to
sixty miles north and south, and an unknown extent east and west. Only
calm weather or a northerly wind keeps it practicable.'"
ABSOLUTE PROOF OF COOK'S CLAIM
From the foregoing it is self-evident that Peary's observations by
sextant could not be more corroborative of Cook's latitude than that the
Phlegethon is proof of the existence of a glacial island between the
same two parallels traversed by both explorers. Cook had discovered the
_cause_, and Peary followed to discover the effect of that _cause_. To
one familiar with the conditions of ice-floes in the vicinity of islands
in the Arctic the reasons for this are as clear as it would be to the
lay mind should it be suddenly announced that on a certain date an
astronomer had discovered the head of a comet, which being doubted by
rival investigators, might lead to the unhappy discrediting of the
original discoverer; but should it be as suddenly announced that a rival
astronomer had observed the tail of a comet in the same locality there
would quite certainly follow a reversal of public sentiment.
EVIDENCE OF HIS TRAVELS
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