The Mobridge news. [volume] (Mobridge, Walworth Co., S.D.) 190?-1917, 1909-12-03
SAYS DR.. COOKS TALE is SELF.
EVIDENT AND EVEN DEllB
ERATE lMPOSTURE.
REVIEWS POLAR STORIES
Intimates Journey and Reports Were
PIanned-Peary's Narrative "Pre-
else, WorkmanIike, Consist
ent, and Credible"

Washington, ID. G. Walter Well
man, whose preparations for conquest
of the North Pole in an airship were
abandoned upon the announcement OF
the claims of DR.. Frederick A. Cook
and Commander Robert f. Peary, is
sued a long statement in which he
analyZed the narratives of the two ex-
plorers. declaring that of Peary pre-
else, wOrkmanlike, consistent, credible
in every particular" and denouncing
that of DR.. Cook as self-evident and
even deliberate impOsture
Cooks story is suspicious both in
what it does tell and what it does not
tell Mr.. Wellman declares He is
generally vague and indefinite, but, like
most men of his class, altogether too
precise at the wrong place. Nowhere
does his story ring true. 1t is always
an approximation of reality itself. This
is true of his figures, his descriptions,
everything.
Those OF us who have had a share
in artic work" says Welman, in con-
Guiding his analysis, "and who have
felt anxiety that no blot of fraud should
stain the proud record OF effort and
sacrifice, had first hope that DR.. Cook
would be able to demonstrate his good
faith. This has dissolved in an analy-
sis of his own story.
"A second hope that he was the vic
tim OF some hallucnation or mental
illness, and himself believed he had
been TO the pole, though, of course.
he has not, vanishes in the light of
earlier and subsequent events.
There remains, though one says it
with keenest regret, only the wretched
alternative that the journey which ne
did make, and the report which he
gave OF it, were deliberately planned
from the outset.
The gist of Mr. Wellman's finding
is that with his meagre party and
equipment Dr. Cook could not possibly
have accomplished the feat for which
he claims credit, that his astronomical
data are too minutely precise to have
been made, under the claimed cOnd-
tiOnS in the field, and that the eXplOr-
ers dash for the lecture platform and
his acceptance of crowns of flowers
placed upon his head by innocent wO-
men and children before submitting
his field records to scientific examina-
ton, all conspire to his diScredit.
Mr.. Wellman attacks first Cooks
story of his journey. He points out
that Arctic Sledging is not a new ven
ture nor an experiment, but hus been
reduced almost to science. Me pro
ceeds to the proposition that tb,.e first
thing to be done in advancing over the
ice fields is the reduction to the mini
mum of the food and fuel to be -Var-
ried, and secOndarily, the Organzat IN
of supporting parties that can be selrt
back from the dwindling main body
until the few who are hardest enter
on the final struggle to the goal. The
longer the route he sets forth, neces-
sarily the greater the weight of food
and fuel, and in consequence much
slower pace.
Passing his argument mainly on
these principles, Mr.. Wellman takes
these comparisons of the supposed
achievements of Peary and Cook. He
quotes from the records to show that
the former took his ship to within
AGO miles of the pole, advancing sup
plies and his party AZ miles closer
during the autumn and spring. Cook,
he points out, started from AnnatOk,
700 geographical miles from the pole
and went 10 geographical miles west
ward before turning northward, ac-
cOrding to his own story
Peary, Wellman continues, mapped
out his plans carefully for the ad-
vance and started with so or 60 men,
14O dogs and 81 sledges. He divided
his party so that he had four support
ing parties who kept open the back
trail and, in leaving the main body,
lightened the loads that men and dogs