CHAPTER XXV 

COOK AND PEARY 

     Sailing down the coast of Norway on my re­turn from Spitzbergen, in September, 1909, newspaper men came aboard the steamer at a stopping port and showed me a telegram an­nouncing that "Doctor Frederick A. Cook, an American, had reached the North Pole." A few details of his story were given—just enough to give me an inkling of the false character of his claim. Partly through intuition, and in part through logic, I felt sure his tale was not true. Hence I declined to make any expression for publication, but said in confidence to my com­rades who were with me that I had not the slightest confidence in Cook's good faith. Twenty-four hours later, at Trondjem, I had Cook's story in full, as it was first cabled, and then knew from its own inherent evidence that his story was not true, that he had not been any­where near the Pole. 

     Two days later we passed through Copen­hagen. Cook had arrived there a day or two earlier, and was being lionized. Between trains I had plenty of time to call upon him, and was, in fact, within a minute's walk of his hotel. If I had had faith in him it would have been my pleasure as an American citizen to offer him my hearty congratulations upon his great achieve­ment; and as an Arctic man it would have been my duty to do so. But under the circumstances I could not shake his hand, and proceeded to Paris without seeing him. For this I was writ­ten down in many newspapers as one who had permitted pique to influence me. 

     When the news came that Peary had reached the Pole I knew it was true, and cabled him my congratulations. Upon returning to the United States I found the Cook-Peary contro­versy raging bitterly. It is in my nature to ab­hor deceit and imposture. This attempt to hoodwink the public, and to rob an honest man of his just dues, seemed to me particularly de­testable, because it put a dark stain upon the pages in which were recorded the efforts of so many brave men of all nations. In my indig­nation, and my desire to help the cause of truth, I prepared and gave to the press, without a penny of compensation, a review of Cook's story in which it was shown that he had ap­proached to within about 500 miles of the Pole and then turned back. 

     Well did I know this was the unpopular side. The public as a rule was friendly to Cook and indignant at Peary because he had used plain language. If I had been in Peary's place I should have used even stronger language than he did. Who would not, having in his posses­sion absolute evidence of imposture? Who fails to cry "Stop, thief," when he chances to be eye-witness to a crime? That I was on the un­popular side soon became plain enough. Hun­dreds of letters poured in upon me denouncing me in savage terms. Scores of newspapers took up the hue and cry, and said I was a worse faker than Cook. I did not mind that; I had simply done what I thought was my duty. 

     It is with no thought of being harsh to Dr. Cook that these lines are written, but only to record the facts. I have never been able to subscribe to the mental derangement theory. There is nothing in Arctic work that I have ever seen—and I have had a little experience—which tends to destroy the mental balance. Cook's trouble was not hallucination, but habit; he had imposed upon the world with his untrue story of ascending Mt. McKinley, and as that went fairly well he bethought him of trying for a larger prize in the field of imposture. 

     For Cook I ask charity and sympathy. He is an erring brother. He fell before temptation, and is now repentant. He should be judged with lenience, not with harshness. 

     In 1907, a party of German officers and scientists spent the summer at our headquarters, closely watching our operations. Among them was Prof. H. Elias, of Berlin, a recognized au­thority on aerial navigation, and editor of the Illustrierte Aeronautische Mitteilungen. Dr. Elias and the officers who were with him not only made a report upon our work to the Gen­eral Staff of the German Army, but Dr. Elias published an exhaustive analysis and description from the viewpoint of one who had been on the spot and who had watched us day by day throughout all our efforts. He says: 

     "Wellman's attempt to reach the North Pole with an airship, as is well known, was not successful this year. Though a real success is not yet to be recorded, the undertaking, con­sidering its high aim, is interesting enough to justify a closer study. As a member of the ex­pedition fitted out by the Berlin Lokal-Anzeiger, I had the opportunity to witness the prepara­tions for the start, as well as the trial trip. I do not hesitate to say that during that time I en­tirely changed my opinion in regard to this undertaking. According to the reports in the papers I had expected to find an advertising scheme that would, relying upon the difficulties presented by the locality, drag on the prepara­tions for the final flight in order to keep the world in a state of suspense. Instead of this I found men who went ahead fired with earnest thought and self-sacrifice, willing to risk both health and life to accomplish their task. That the expedition is a sincere and serious undertak­ing is an established fact, and no reason can be found justifying its being held under suspicion or ridicule."

     Dr. Elias adds: 

     "One often hears the remark that the attempt (to reach the Pole by airship) should not be made until the problem of long distance flights in Europe has been solved. With this I do not agree. The conditions in the far north are much more favorable for long flights than they are here."

     The distinguished German scientist then calls attention to the relatively light winds usually prevailing in the Arctic regions in summer, the small variation of the temperature, the use of the drag rope which is possible in the north and not in Europe, and to other conditions. He de­scribes in detail all the preparations for the trial, and the voyage itself, approves most Of the methods adopted and criticizes only some of the smaller details, says the America's speed was up to the calculations, and concludes his review, made as a wholly disinterested observer, with these words: 

     "It would seem a pity if after so much care­ful preparation, and study of airships in civilized localities, this attempt in the far north should not be resumed. A long journey over the ice, perhaps a new record for the farthest north, would be almost certain. And in this way it would be proven that the airship is eminently suitable for polar exploration."

     The testimony of one such -witness, a man of science, and for six weeks present at our head­quarters, seeing everything and talking with everyone, should be sufficient answer to all criticisms or suspicions having their origin at a distance and in complete ignorance of the facts.