South Bend News-Times, Volume 33, Number 281, South Bend, St. Joseph County, 7 October 1916 — Page 5

Page PDF (967.83 KB)

Back to issue view

rll KiT i;i,mx;. ocmiw.n l :!;. Tie Evidence r 7 Peary Did. w I m failure ot i .. . - civ

rrlE SOUTH lifcND NEWS-TIMES

tut TU s j 11 11 1 F inl Tl p TV Sil Idas' 1 fierier tiirae er J&awbeeii wscoverea r ft

Cook Didn't, That Cook

Exph :' 'Li overs to .vv fcvf$

Find

' - - ". ' ' . " " y-. - A .

Mysterious

Crocker Has the Vast Question iVTHOTJGH Conprcrs has officiallv recognized Rear-Admiral Peary as the diseoTerer of the North Tole, advancing him to tho rank he holds as a reward for his feat, there are men in Conpreps who Insist' that his admiral's uniform should be stripped from him. Recent developments in connection with other discoveries claimed by Peary, they contend, arp sufficient to throw so much doubt on his Terarity and competency aa an explorer that his discovery of the North Pole ought now to be repudiated. On the other hand, while there are still a number of scientific mn who believo that Dr. Frederick A. Cook actually discovered the North Pole, thre Is considerable evidence that Iiis claimr in that respect are absolutely false. Pr. Cook's claims have been repe ly presented to Congress, but no definite decision has evrr been delivered. At the present time Congress is more or less divided on the question as to whether either Peary or Cook really discovered the Pole, and the question that now han&s in the balance is "Has tho North Pole ever been reached by anybody?" Thl question may shortly be threshed out aRain In Congress as a result of the uncertainty In which the whole subject is now enshrouded. Here are presented the conflicting views of two prominent Congressmen who have been taking an active part in the North pule conflict. On the one hand. Congressman Heleesen, of North Dakota, insists Peary did not succeed. On the other. Congressman Fess Is equally insistent Dr. Cook is an imposter. The Congressional ln estimation which may follow the revival of the controversy may Fettle the matter once and for all time. In the meanwhile, however, it may be regarded as an open question as to whPther the North Pole has ever been discovered at all. By Hon. Henry T. Helgesen, Representative in Congress fiom North Dakota. I AM satisfied that Peary did not discover the North Polo for two reasons: (1) For all the talk there has been about "scientific data" brought back by him and furnished as evidence, the fact is that his claim to the discovery in question is backed by his unsupported word, and by nothing else. (2) All of the other cUims to discoveries in the Arctic region by Peary have been proven fal?e. Why. then, should we accept as true his unsupported statement that he arrived at the Pole? So much for my reasons for believing that Peary did not discover the Pole. Now it remains for me to prove that these reasons are based on facts. and not on mistake or personal prejudice. Peary claims to have discovered the Peary Channel an alleged northern boundary of Greenland and therefore to have been first to establish the fact that Greenland is an inland. That discovery alone, if a true one. would sufficient to establish for Peary iv reputation as an explorer. But. unfortunately for him. it has been proved by explorations subsequent to his that no euch channel exists. Th Peary discovery of the channel was made incidentally to his expedition cf K'01-2. Five ears later th Danish explorer Mylius Krichs'-n looked in vain for this Interesting geographical feature. In 1912 this denial of its existence was verified by another explorer. Knud Rasrcussen. 'who reported that h found, where the channel was alleeed by Peary to be. no water at all. but "an ice-free upland, abounding in game." In view of this and other evidence, Iary Channel h.s been struck ofT the map-- of o.ir Navy Department and off the chirts of the Coast Survey. The Peary Channel was allege J to open fit on" end into a fcreat body of water, which Feary called the Kast Greenland This sea was mapped by Teary in 1 S C 1 -2 as extending from 1C' north latitude and .".! west longitude to about l"o west lor.critufle. Here, undeniably, was another and Terv important :eopraphical discovery. Put. again unfortunately, the Mylius Hrichsen expedition. f;ve years latr. ascertained definitely that the vast v. atr-pace in question was fill of it dry l'in-i. This was erif.ed by the later expe-

Opened Up ' v r&m-m J:i

ii, lain I,.. , i IM)wv....ll,.1.B.i.tr'i"r-J:""-U' ' ' ih.iiiiiii.iii i in i ij mm in V V "Mf L ' 'TT'i. '. !' ' 1 . '.'-

ated- Admiral 1'carv in me unuorm oi uear-Aamirai u men ui.Kres uiamcu i -x -x . ! a;-r-i'r.

Him When Thcv OITiciallv Hecoffnized Him an Discoverer ot ine ' .w Ivr; ?- :-';-X-'r;i-4:

North role. His Opponents Wish to Take This Unilorm irom mm. ;';:ti

Man of Crocker Land Which Peary Claimed to Have Discovered in 190G. In 1913, an Expedition- Sent Out by the American Museum of Natural History to Explore Crocker Land Reported That There Was No Such Place. The Site of the Supposed Crocker Land, They Said, Was a Broad Expanse of Polar Sea! Upon the Strength of This Development. Suspicion Has Been Levelled Acainst All Pearv's "Discoveries" Includini: That of the North Tole! ditions of Mikkelen and RasmuFFrn. Consequently, the Past Creenland Sea has been removed from our Government maps. Hut the N'avy Department charts of tho Arctic still show-, to the northwest of Grnnt Land, an undefined land-ma.-a marked Crocker Land, which Peary claims to have discovered in P". To peographerf. Crocker Land offered an obvious and tempting invitation: and. accordlncly, in 10 1:?. an expedition was sent out by the American M:i?cum of Natural History to explore it. The expedition pot back not Ions; ai;o. with the report that "there was no such place." The site of the alleged Crocker Land was wholly occupied by a broad expanse of Po'ar Sea. So Crocker Land, like other Peary discoveries, must vanish from the Government and other n:aps. In 1900 Captain Otto Sverdrup. a Norwegian explorer, discovered a bis island off the coast of (Greenland which be mapped under the name of Axel Hoi berg Land. Subsequently Peary declared that he had "seen it f ist,' two years earlier, and pave it the name of Jeup Iind. It vas put down thar way on o':r Government map5;. Peary, in his book. "Nearest the Pole." published in P'07. says ipae 2'C) that, in July. 1 SOS. he saw this land-mass "from th- height? of the Ellesinere Land icecap." This statement is really rather remarkable: for. on pares 2?'-T of the same book. Peary pays that be spent all the time from July 1 to Aug'i-t 1" of that year in making the trip from New York to Cape York, and in -hunting walruses and assembling my party of natives" in the immediate neighborhood of the latter place. He was thus simultaneously in two p-aces. separated from each other by 00 miles. Put. pun tho :?h pifted with supernatural vision, he could hardly have sn Axel Helberg Land (alias Jesup Lund), hcre he locates it descriptively.

- .s:y.rx ;Av;'rr r,--.-

- .- " v. , v f -v . i The Above Sketch Shows the the North Pole. becalm it is much farther south and a preat deal farther west. Evidence in this case bein deemed ample, the Government maps and the maps of the National Ceosrraphie Society have eliminated Jesup Land, and have put Aol Ileibrp Land in quite another place, the Geographic Society srivins Sverdrup full credit for th1 discovery. Peary Channel brin? proved a myth, it follow? that Peary is mistakenly credited with havinp discovered that reen!and Is an island. Undoubtedly Greenland is an island. The fact, however, was not proei by Pcury. It, was satisfactorily determined by the Cr'e'ly expedition of ten years before Pjary. Inasmuch as Peary's other so-called discoveries have, each and every one, ben disproved, ho'.v can his latest claim to the discovery of the Pole be accepted on his unsupported word, which is all be has to back him up? iary himself says that an explorer's

4 T-

. - ' ; "4 k 5&.i ;- 'S Oi T - o - 'v

O V M v.M..

- yy-r'j y- iJ&y:---

tv , v-'''' . - . v

Two Routes by Which Peary and Cook Respectively Claimed to Have Reached Claims Are Now .Made That Neither of Them Ever Discovered It.

proof mut be fundamentally based on his rSt recoru. IttU wnat aas neen i-eary a record? Is It not shown by incontrovertible evidence open to eve ry body's knowledge, and independent of anybody's personal opinion or prejudice that hi3 ecord is one of claimed discoveries which in every instance have been proven false? Why. then, believe bis claim that he discovered the North Pole? Certainly he has offered no proof. Two Secretaries of the Navy (the service In which he was emploved) have said that they have never received any data from Peary to substantiate his statement that he reached the Pole. Peary claimed that all his data w.?re piven to the Coast Survey. The only proofs received by the Coast Survey from Peary were a set of tidal observations, all made at coast poin's. ar.d nor.f of them marie on th sledge pdition en route to or returning from the place Peary chose to call the Pole. In adGrat Pritaln Rights Rsrved.

Dr. Frederick A. Cook in the Wreath Given Him by His Admirers in New York When They Recognized Him as the Discoverer of the North Pole. His Opponents Wish to Prevent This YTreath from Being Placed Back Over His Head.

. r .'.'4 1 is

GREENLAND

- '.üÄf Fin bay - Sv , . : 5 - dition to these there as only a series or aueea souimins, rej'muH wim. iw story he tells is so contradictory a3 to discredit thrn. jrima focir. At a Congressional "hearing" Mr. Tittman, then Superintendent of tho Coast Survey, was asked: "What evidence is thTe'that this party, ccnsisilnj; of Pary and others, reached within striking distance of the Pole?' Mr. Tittman replied: "I have r.o evidence of that, except the line of soundings under Peary's signature." F'earj- broueht bark nothing no witnesses, no worth-while scientific proof, nothing but hi3 unsupported word to back up his claim to have ciiseovered the PoI But. inasmuch as his reputation for veracity has been completely shattered by the fact that every other claim of di3covry made by him ha been proven false, there is nothing the world can accepr as demonstrating that at any time he has been aaywbere near the Polo.

Did and Peary Didn 't,

That Did th O and Both Didn't By Hon. S. D. Fess, Representative in Congress from Ohio. I N w hat I am aho it to say I shall voie my sentiments not only as a Member of Congress, but In the spirit of nn educator a collece president, a teacher of history, and as a citizen Jealous that there should b no perversions of o ir American history. It is Avell for u to rememtr that the forum selected bv Dr. C oo k for the determination of his claims was the University of Copnhajren. He nt it what be declared were his proofs of his alleged discovery' of the North Pole. The committer's final verdict and the verdict of the university consistory is expressed formally in the finding of the latter: "The documents handed the university for examination do no: contain observations and Information which can be regarded as proof that Dr. Cook reached the North Pole on his recent expedition." Rasmussen. a noted Arctic explorer who lias favored Dr. Cook's claim, was called In as an expert by the university's committee; lie is reported as saying: "When 1 saw the observations. 1 realized that, it w as a scandal. The doc uuentfl which Ir. Cook sent to the university are most impudent. It is th moft childish cort of attempt at cheating." As ".o the position of Amundsen, ihn discoverer of th South Pole, I quote ni follows from the report of an interview with him: "There was absolutely nothing in theso alleged observations of Dr. Cook," paid Captain Amundsen. "It was all fake and could have deceived nobody. Thus, in sorrow, was I forced to tlie conclusion that my old comrade was lyinfT." After the University of Copenhagen found that Dr. Ook had utterly failed to establish his claim, it will be remembered that he was discredited by and expelled from membership in America's leading organizations of explorers. Would not a man of a keen sense of honor, if he had a righteous claim and really believed it should be investigated. instead of maintaining a lobby in Washington and besieging Congress, present his facts to the organizations of experts In explc -ation, which had expelled him. and ask them to reinstate him? Dr. Cook's contention that h ascended to the summit of Mount McKinley two or thre? years prior o his claim with respect to the North Pole is a n. after with which the public generally is so thoroughly familiar that it is hardlv worth while to commr-nl thcion extensively. It will bo remembered that upon Dr. Cook's return from the Arctic regions in 1909 the guidf' who he algfwl wen to the top of Mount McKinley wih him announced that they ncr had b-n to C;e summit and that the picture l)r. Cook took with this puii holding a llag on the top was miles from the j"ak. I)r. Cook, with respect to this, averted that this was merely a p'xt cf Admiral P.iry to ruin him. Anyon-. however. wi:o takes the trouble to exan.ir.e th- nv. s l(r fles of that period fan re:-di'v asei-raln for himself that this guid" repudiate i Cook's claim befnro :t wa eve- known that Peary had reached ?l,e N'or'h I'o'.o, for at the tim he ha 1 net yc. .een een heard from. K ery true American fducator mut recent m i n '1 s t!ie rec-nt efTr' to poison the this- country ry o: tl.e Nt;r:i children w Ith respect to th I'o'.e. Many r.r as papers if-err. TO :.,ic 1-een misled and have füllf-n into thtray cf offering Dr. Cook'- -uA: pri-es for essays from th" children upon the subject of the jriority of the c every of the North Pob and :.'?.. while the children were in the act of writing such -.avs. printing a mas.3 of material f-.irni.-h d by Ur. Cook and giving a wholly di-:torted idea of th: fac;-;. Further comment upon sufh actlvplf Is unnecessary. I would njt lose th door of invr stigation e-. en to Dr. Cook, but he is not entitled to osf in any direction until he acts in a manner th.it accords with Iii3 prr t ::?:r.ns. If he haj any hona f.de claims tf-er is tut one honest course fcr "rim to jur-ae. Iahim in a stralzhtfor r-rd mann' them to th forum !;e h:.:r:s'.f si.-.-r :he University f Copenhagen, or lay the before the American orgau'.za:or.scientific expert15 w;:ich ha-. "xp'Ild him from membership ar.d s-nre reir.statement. Until he removed the stigm.t him as a result of ha e n an ! i r'?ts upj :pul.ioa from the crganiz.tticr.s o? Aa'TKar. f.xr-orerj and experts upon Arctic condiuons he t-houM not, throurii a bay. clair men re.-e. s upon the attention of i.cr.grsswho 'kuow- little, if ny thine of pola rr h and Ws of thval'nr.i necessary to prove, t-cai.

D Q Fi U

ft u o