Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1911-02-03

that Peary. while travelling through deep
snow March -. records: During the DAY
We saw the tracks Of two foxes in this
remote and ley wilderness. nearly 40
ziautica. miles beyond the northern coast
cf Grant Land.
Certainly. Why not? Since they
were SO near the northern termination Of
The land zee discovered by DIR. Cook. In
This connection Il is also important to re-
mark that between latitude 81 and his ap-
proNirnate approach to tae pole. pr. COOK
makes NO mention OF animal LIE, ana tnls
is corroborated BY Peary's own statement
that he observed no tracks OF animals be-
You'd the Ssth parallel. Thus Peary cor
roborated Cook b. the very absence OF
animal life In the very region where Cook
states he saw no land.
Peary's Statements Favor Cook.
On Peary's r~turn journey he states
that as they approached Grant Land the
fresh track of foxes and other evidence or
animal life were very numerous. And II
the nearness Of land was evidenced in
this case 1t is also clear that the tracks
and appearance Of animals on his jour
,.ey in the high Attitudes should be given
equal weight as evidence OF the lanos
discovered by DIR. Cook.
taken by Iaary from Cape columbia
northward indicate u steady increase
in depth to latitude 81 degrees - min
utes where the lead touched bottom
at So fathoms. until in latitude SO
degrees -: minutes the sounding
showed a depth of but $40 fathoms.
Referring to this we find that Peary
says. on page 3:s, of his narrative:
This diminution in depth Is TACT
OF considerable interest in reference
Ia the possible existence of land to
the Westward
1t seems 10 me that it is not i'm
pcrtinent to remark that this land 10
the westward was scarcely two Sleeps
distant as DIR. Cook mas steadfastIy
maintained. Finally, on page Sao'
Peary says: Taking various facts into
consideration IL would seem that. an
obstruction 1and. Islands or shoais)
containing nearly half a million square
statute miles probably exists. and
another at or near Croker Land
More Accurate Observations.
And this is all that DIR. Cook claims in
lis locat on of land to the northward OF
the very Croker Land to which Perry al
ludes.
AS to DIR. Cooks observations, when in
tine immediate vicinity of. the pole. would
call attention to the fact that his use Of
q sextant in determining the altitude OF
the sun. April Il. 1908, was two weeks
later In the same month when Peary took
his observations April Z. the year follow
ing, and by which he claims to have To-
Gated the north pole. Since the altitude of
the sun was two weeks higher when Cook
made his observations eleven months
previous, Cook was, therefore, able TO
secure more accurate series OF attitudes.
and this will have an important bearing
in suhstantiat'On of DIR. Cooks claims.
Consider ng the difficulty which Peary
has had in proving whether he was at 1.6
81, ,4Io h. ant
side or the Boring strait side. and whether
he was ten or fifteen miles away. I
think DR.. Cook wass justified In saying
that. although he believed he was at the
north pole, critical examination Of his
or ginal cords may be necessary before
he would be justified in claiming that he
had been exactly at the north pole. AT
any rate. it places Dr. Cook in the posi-
ton of endeavoring to tell the truth.
In this connection l feel like replying
to a criticism which Mr.. Grosvenor, editor
of the National Geograph C Society mag
azine, published over his own signature
Immediately following DR.. Cooks return
from the pole:
Cooks story reads like that Of
man who had fill d his head with the
contents of few books on polar expedi-
tons. and especially the writings Of Sver-
drup.'
Criticisms Unfair, He Says.
Now. since Sverdrup is a real navi-
gator. having accompanied Nansen dur
ing his three years drift on the Fran,
and, following this. having himself or
saniEed and led an eXpejit on duiing
thu &c years to the westward OF Grinnell
Land, in the course of which he d.scov-
cred and charted. in 1902, Heiberg Land
and contiguous islands. which, however,
Peary charteai four years later AMI named
Jessup Land, do not consider Mr..
Grosvenor's armchair criticism of the
writings Of sapt. Sverdrup Of DR.. Cook
quite in keeping with the principles Of q
square deal and fair play.
II Is, therefore. to be earnestly hoped
that the American Cong. ess will de-
liberate carefully to whose coUnsels
nautical honors.
Among TIL, reasons which Peary as
signs fo- discrediting DR.. Cook is one per-
tanning to the original records which DIR.
Cook unwillingy lief, at Etah. One OF
the reasons for discredi ing Cook IS stated
TO be that ii was merely q scheme on
the part OF DR.. Cook. SO that he could
claim they We're lost or destroyed so that
he could escape being forced to produce
TO substantiate mis- claim. Recently. when
j asked DR.. Cook about this. his :epiy
vas: This does not sound very manly.
If this was SO in Pesrys belief why did
he not bring them back? Here was alb
soiuic proof in his own lands. Why did
&c hurry it?'
furthermore. DIR. Cook assures me that
ne, being on good terms with Harry
Whitney OF New Haven. asked Mr. Whit
ney, as q personal favor. to bring to his
Cook 81 family IN Brooklyn his American
flag. mis- sextant and original observa-
tioEs. Since DIR. Cook was obliged to re-
turn 10 civilization by first making a
dangerous slsdge trip of 5o0 or GOO miles
to CpcrEayik, Greenland, ne took with
him merely his reduced observations.
which. being of inconsequeptial weigh.
and bulk, were all which he deemed nec-
essary for his preliminary story of his
sledge Journey. expecting. of course. to be
able To veri.y these reduced observations
u: means OF the field books containing
the originals. which he expected Harry
hitn. 20 bring with him on the steam
er Roosevelt.
Wants Whitney to Give Facts.
Whether or not these original obser-
vations were delivered to Nj Whitney I
have 10 means OF proving, but il Mr..
Whitney will say III the interests of truth
and justice just what DR.. Cook left with
him. think we get at the bottom OF