Part 53 (1/2)
Among the reasons which Peary a.s.signs 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 a.s.sociation for the Advancement of Science, member of the Wyoming Historical and Geological Society, the Franklin Inst.i.tute, 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 t.i.tle 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 a.s.sumption of their Munchausen-like proclivities that much of the weight of argument depends. But most of all the truthfulness of the doctor's a.s.sertion 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 t.i.tle '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._