F 912 .M2R8 ^ V ^ ' * »' o ^^ ^y(.^^ . "V^ ^ " <= , "^O ^^ , •\o^^ ^•^ ^ -^^0^ .^^°- o V ^^ ^-^ ■I'^^l,^.- ,*'' "'^ < o " <= » '^O . A .-Jv' .'Jv .0' -o ^^ y'r'm^^ ^ /^M^ .^^ :^ -^^ '-"' ^^ 4.^^ >, O ^^O ^ v^ ;;:#M-^ "^ c*' -*>?#-■• ^ '^ .v>>i2*^^ .>^ ^^ .^A^^^^ t<> /^ .^>)^^ ^; '^<^ <.--^-^-''/ V»^/ ^v^?:V:-v "^^^ > ry .^ V \' 'Z- t?*. ^ ,^' :>:M^^ '^..s^^ ^^mm, ^ sx^' c =-^ .V-^. <.y ' '^"JTo A^ V-^'. ■^^ ^'4*^^.^ '''^. ^:> ( OTHER WORKS BY THE AUTHOR. vSantiiiyo Leslie's, 1899 First Ma.vor of Havana 'Leslie's, 1899 Revolt in Panay and Celiu Leslie's, 19()0 Life in the Far-Off Philippines Leslie's, 1900 General Bates as a Diplomat Leslie's, 1900 Business Interest in Manila Leslie's, 1900 An Artist's Strange Fxperiences in the h'ar h'.ast Leslie's, 1900 Hints for Americans — Transportation in Si>iith Anu'rica. . Sci. Am., 1902 The Famous Oroya Railroad Sci. Am., 1902 Mount Pelee in Eruption Sci. Am., 1902 Punta Arenas : Most Southerly Town in the World. .Sci. Am. Sup., 1902 Queer Craft of the Philippines, China and vSouth America. Sci. Am., 1902 Pizarro. h'ounder of Peru Sci. Am., 1902 Treaty of Jolo Sci. Am., 1904 Lakes Titicaca, Saracocha and Cachipascana, or Xaxigation on an Ocean Steamer 13,000 feet ahove Sea Level Har])er's Mag., 190;i Guam and Its Governor Munsey's, 1900 Highest of All Railroads World's Work, 1902 Did An American Discover the Xorth Pole? A. H. Review, 1914 Peary's I{ndorsement of Dr. Cook and Henson's Opinion of Same, A. H. Review, 1914 Scientific and Practical Value of Polar Exploration. .A. H. Review, 1914 Side Lights on Mount McKinley A. H. Review, 1914 The Sultan of Moro Century Mag., 1913 MOUNT McKlNLEY ITS BEARING ON THE POLAR CONTROVERSY During the last decade six attempts have been made to reach North America's highest peak — the summit of Mount McKinley. Of these the second, third and sixth were successful. In 1903 Dr. Frederick A. Cook, with three companions, Ralph Shainwald, Robert Dunn and Fred Printz, made his first and unsuccessful attempt. Three years later, in 1906, Dr. Cook organized and led a party of ten, including Belmore Browne and.Hers- chel C. Parker, to the base of the mountain, but one after another of the party dropped out, until only Dr. Cook and his packer, Edward Barrill, were left. These two men, with courage undaunted by apparently insurmountable obstacles, continued the trip and finally succeeded, on September 16th, 1906, in attaining the "top of the conti- nent." The weather was favorable, the temperature — 16 deg. F., the air at the top clear, and Doctor Cook secured a splendid photograph of the summit, with his companion, Barrill, holding the American flag on the highest point of the North American continent, an altitude of 20,390 feet. Of this photograph more later. (See page 28.) In 1910 the Lloyd expedition, comprising a party of three men, ascended the southern peak of the mountain, and not content with this achievement, immediately there- after carried a flagstaff to a height of 20,000 feet on the northern peak, and planted it there so firmly that it was still plainly visible in 1913. The same year (1910) Belmore Browne and the pseudo-Professor Parker made a trip to Alaska for the 8 nominal purpose of climbing Mount McKinley, but turned back at a height of 10,300 feet. In 1912 they made an- other attempt which they claimed was almost successful. The latest expedition, that of Dr. Hudson Stuck, Arch- deacon of the Yukon, attained the summit on June 7th, 1913, having followed a route which, when near the top, gradually merged with that which Dr. Cook and Barrill traversed seven years previously. Dr. Stuck's first narra- tive was published in Scribner's Magazine of November, 1913. The ascent of Mount McKinley, while an admittedly difficult feat, was inevitable sooner or later by some in- trepid explorer. In 1906 and 1907 Dr. Frederick A. Cook was universally accepted as the first man to set foot on the "Top of the Continent," as was shown by the follow- ing announcement copied from page 714 of the National Geographic Magazine for December, 1906: "December 15, Annual Banquet. The New Wil- lard. The guests of the evening will include * * * Commander Robert E. Peary and Mrs. Peary ; Mr. Morris K. Jesup, of New York, Presi- dent of the Peary Arctic Club, and Mrs. Jesup ; * * * Dr. Frederick A. Cook ivho has been the fiist to ascend Mount McKinleij." The January, 1907, number of the National Geographic Magazine, giving a detailed account of the above-men- tioned dinner, contains the following remarks by Alex- ander Graham Bell, Contributing Editor of the National Geographic Magazine and member of the Board of Man- agers of the National Geographic Society: "I have been asked to say a few words about a man who must be known, by name, at least, to all of us, Dr. Frederick A. Cook, President of the Explorers Club, New York. We have with us and are glad to welcome Com- mander Peary of the Arctic regions, but in Dr. Cook we have one of the few Americans, if not the only American, who has explored both extremes of the world, the Arctic and the Antarctic regions. And now he has been to the top of the American continent, and therefore to the top of the world; and tonight I hope Dr. Frederick Cook will tell us something about Mount McKinley." Doubtless, today Dr. Frederick A. Cook would hold un- disputed title of the first Conciueror of this Monarch of North American Peaks had it not seemed desirable to his opponents in the Polar controversy to cast a shadow of doubt on his mountaineering feat, in the hope to there- by discredit his discovery of the North Pole. To this end methods were employed which will not bear the search- light of honest investigation. A campaign of dishonor was inaugurated, the initial step in which was the perjured affidavit made by Edward Barrill, for which he was promised $25,000 and was paid $1,500, at the time the affidavit was made. For three years Barrill had proudly boasted to friends and strangers alike of how he and Dr. Cook had climbed Mount Mc- Kinley. But he was a man of moderate means, with a family, and needed money. However, he refused mod- erately large amounts, and it was not until the proffered bribe was increased to $25,000 that he finally consented to make the false affidavit. This valuable (?) document in the hands of the Peary interests, served as a news- paper sensation for a time, and no doubt had weight with that portion of the public which allows the press bureaus to think for it; but reasoning people argued that an affi- davit purchased from a self-confessed liar, was worth but little, pro or con. Other steps must be taken. Other steps ive)-e taken. Mr. Peary's press agent ofi"ered $3,000 and Lawyer J. M. Ashton, of Tacoma, Washington, a like amount towards financing an expedition to climb Mount McKin- ley in 1910. To this offer "Professor" H. C. Parker and Belmore Browne, both "quitters" from Dr. Cook's 1906 expedition, responded. J. A. MacDonald, who was in the foot-hills of Mount McKinley when Dr. Cook's party landed at the headwaters of the Yentna River, writes of this same "Professor" as follows : "Dr. Parker should be the last one to say any- thing about mountain climbing, or anything where 10 it takes a man and pluck to accomplish results — good results — as he showed himself to be the rank- est kind of a tenderfoot while in the foothills of Mt. McKinley, and was the laughing stock of the coun- try. Mt. McKinley and the country around there was too rough for him. He got 'cold feet' and started back for the States, before he had even seen much of the country around there." This choice combination went to Alaska and engaged in mining and hunting for a time in the foothills of Mount McKinley. When the season was well advanced they started up the northeast side of the mountain, but were turned back by rotten ice ; after this futile attempt they ascended to a height of 10,300 feet on the south side and returned with a number of photographs and sketches, some of which were afterwards published by Belmore Browne in magazine articles and later in his book : "The Conquest of Mount McKinley." (See page 29.) In Parker's account of the 1910 expedition he claimed that "The northeast ridge, the one used by Dr. Cook (north of Ruth Glacier) was absolutely insur- mountable." But in 1912 Messrs. Browne and Parker made yet an- other attempt to scale the mountain — again financed by the Peary interests — and this time "Professor" Parker found reason for a change of thought regarding the route to the top, for of this trip he said : "The northeast ridge is the only feasible ridge, and whoever goes up will follow in my footsteps." Parker was advised to take this route by Engineer R. C. Bates, United States Revenue Inspector of Mines, who in 1911 with a party of two explored the mountain, and selected the northeast ridge as the only feasible route to the top. lie ascended to 11,000 feet and told the exploit to the Parker party, who took the same route, and with an able guide ascended nearly to the summit. Of this trip the Associated Press said that its principal result 11 was to show that the northeast ridge was climbable. In 1913 Hudson Stuck ascended by the Muldrow glacier and the northeast ridge. Dr. Cook's judgment in his selection of the northeast ridge as his route to the top was thus vindicated by three different parties, among them the men who started out to discredit him. * * * In addition to various magazine articles by different explorers, three books have been published, describing the ascent of Mount McKinley ; one, "To the Top of the Continent," by Dr. Frederick A. Cook, relating the history of his first attempt and his later success ; another by Bel- more Browne, "The Conquest of Mount McKinley," which gives a brief outline of his trip with Dr. Cook in 1906, an account of his expedition with "Professor" Parker in 1910 ; also the story of his near-ascent in 1912. The third and latest book is "The Ascent of Denali (Mount McKinley)," by Hudson Stuck, D. D., Archdeacon of the Yukon. The interest in Mr. Browne's book centers in Chapter X, which he calls "The End of the Polar Controversy"; and Chapter XXVI, in which he relates the story of his last vain struggle to reach the actual summit. In Chapter XXVI, Mr. Browne describes in detail the ascent to an altitude of 19,300 feet, at which point they encountered a severe blizzard. Although they persevered for a time and managed to proceed a short distance higher, the blinding storm rendered it impossible for them to distinguish objects, or even read the dials of their barometers; and they were eventually forced to turn back without reaching the summit. Mr. Browne says, on page 346: «* * * -^g Y^Q^^ j-jQ^ stood on the top." Belmore Browne asserts that Dr. Cook's photograph of the summit of Mount McKinley is not a photograph of the summit, but was taken in the foothills, 20 miles from McKinley's highest peak. He also asserts that 12 his own picture of what he calls the "Fake Peak" was taken at the same spot as was Dr. Cook's photograph, and therefore he considers it a "conviction" of Dr. Cook. In Chapter X, opposite page 122, Mr. Browne pub- lishes a picture, underneath which appears the following legend : "The author photographing the Fake Peak. Tucker standing where Barrill stood. This view inchiding the author is used for a special reason. As short a time ago as March, 1913, a Geographer accused the author of painting (by hand) the views of this peak with which we convicted Dr. Cook !" (Photo by H. C. Parker.) | See page 29. | Mr. Browne does not take his readers into his confi- dence sufficiently to mention the name of the "Geogra- pher" who made the above accusation — because the name would stand for an authority beyond dispute. Even a twelve-year-old boy who has spent his holidays roaming about with a kodak can see at a glance that the picture with which Mr. Browne claims he "convicted Dr. Cook" is not a photograph per se, but a drawing made over a photograph. This picture certainly bears conviction of fraud but not of Dr. Cook. On this point Mr. Browne is caught in his own trap and "convicted" by his own work. He is a clever artist indeed, but not so clever that he can disguise a combination photograph-drawing-paint- ing successfully enough to deceive even an amateur photographer, to say nothing of an expert professional. As a matter of fact, one need be neither amateur nor professional — just plain layman — to discern the glaring differences between Mr. Belmore Browne's composite pic- ture of the so-called "Fake Peak" and Dr. Cook's bona fide photograph of the summit. Since Mr. Browne admits that: "We had not stood on the top" and since he further admits that he was unable to see 13 anything of the mountain higher than a point of a thou- sand feet altitude below the summit, he is not in a posi- tion to say what the summit looks like or whether or not Dr. Cook's photograph is a true picture of the highest point. Personally, in my work as a magazine writer and spe- cial correspondent for various publications, I have had much experience in photographic work at high altitudes; my work in this line has been highly approved by the heads of several departments of our government, and some of it has been accepted for use in official publica- tions; I therefore am competent to make the unqualified statement that Dr. Cook presents a photograph from Na- ture, while Belmore Browne's picture is obviously faked. [See page 31. | Although Mr. Browne prints under his picture which he calls the "Fake Peak" the words: "Photo by H. C. Parker," his memory apparently slipped a cog at this point, for on page 121 he writes: '<* * * While we stood there lost in thought of the dramatic side of our discovery. Professor Parke)- (not Tucker) walked to the top of the rock at the point where Barrill had posed when Dr. Cook exposed the negative. His figure completed the picture." The above is onlj^ one more proof of Mr. Browne's in- accurate and careless statements. In his story of his 1912 expedition, on pages 340 and 341, Mr. Browne says: "Report has it that the Lloyd Mount McKinley party had reached this peak or one of its northern shoulders and there raised a pole above a pile of rocks * * * Qj^ ^Y\e last days close to the southern summit every rock and snow slope of that approach had come into the field of our power- ful binoculars. We not only saw no sign of a flag- pole but it is our concerted opinion that the North- ern Peak is more inaccessible than its higher south- ern sister." A year later Archdeacon Stuck wrote in Scribner's Magazine for November, 1913 : 14 "All at once Walter cried out, 'I see the flag- staff!' eagerly pointing to the rocky peak nearest the summit * * * Whipping out the field- glasses, one by one we all looked and all saw it distinctly, standing out against the sky. Through the glasses it rose sturdy and strong, one side cov- ered with crusted snow ; and we were greatly re- joiced that we could carry down confirmation of the matter." While Archdeacon Stuck, in November, 1913, thus di- rectly contradicted the statement of Belmore Browne, at the same time, in word and illustration, he corroborated Dr. Cook's account of his ascent to the summit, published six years earlier. This corroboration was doubly strik- ing, because it was unconscious and unintentional. Note the similarity in the following parallel columns : On page 218 of "To the Top of the Continent," Dr. Cook says : "As we dragged ourselves out of this icy ditch of ter- rors (in the northeast ridge) we were able to see that we had passed the bar- riers to the ascent. The slopes above were easy, safe and connected, but the bigness of the mountain was more and more appar- ent as we rose above the clouds. The task enlarged with the ascent * * * Soon after noon we swung from the Arete easterly to the glacier. The snow was hard and the slope such that but little step cutting was now necessary. Along the glacier to the gathering basin near the summit the prospective route rose in easy slants to our goal." On page 544 of Scrib- ner's Magazine for Novem- b e r , 1913, Archdeacon Stuck says: "With the exception of this ridge (the northeast ridge) Denali (Mt. McKin- ley) is not a mountain that presents any special diffi- culties of a technical kind. Its difficulties lie in its re- moteness, its size, the great distances of snow and ice its climbing must include the passage of * * * But the northeast ridge in its present condition adds all of sensation and danger that any man could desire." 15 On page 225 Dr. Cook says : "During the frequent breathing spells we exam- ined the upper reaches of the mountain. We had seen the summit from various sides, but we were not pre- pared for the surprise of the great spread of surface. From below the apex ap- pears like a single peak with gradual slopes. From the northern foothills we had previously discovered two distinct peaks. But now, from the upper slopes, we saw that there were sev- eral miniature ranges run- ning up to two main peaks, about two miles apart. To the west a ridge with a sad- dle, to the east a similar ridge, with one main peak to the southeast. This peak was the highest point and to it we aimed to take our weary spirits." Of the final climb to the top Dr. Cook wrote on pages 230 and 231 : Note Archdeacon Stuck's narrative, page 548: "At last the crest of the ridge was reached and we stood well above the two peaks which rise at the ends of the horseshoe. We had been aware for some time that we were above the North Peak for its apex had been like an index as we rose, and we had paused and noted the spot where we seemed level with it. But still there stretched ahead of us and perhaps one hundred feet above us, another small ridge with a pair of haycock summits. This is the real top of De- nali (Mt. McKinley). From below it merges indistin- guishably, even on a clear day, with the crest of the horseshoe ridge with which it is parallel, but it is not a part of it, but a culminat- ing ridge beyond it." Archdeacon Stuck's ex- perience is given on pages 548 and 549 of Scribner's: "The last few hundred feet of the ascent so reduced our physical powers that we dropped onto the snow, completely exhausted, gasp- ing for breath. We puffed and puffed, and after a while the sickening thump under the left fifth rib be- came less noticeable. Breath came and went easier, and then the call of the top was "The writer's shortness of breath became more and more distressing as he rose * =^ * Yet a few m.oments' rest recovered him as com- pletely as ever, to struggle on another twenty or thir- - paces, and to sink gasp- ing on the snow again. M: * * rpj^g j^^^ man on the rope, in his enthusiasm and excitement somewhat over- 16 again uppermost * * Just passing his narrow wind below the summit we drop- margin, had almost to be ped over an icy shelf on the hauled up the few final feet, verge of collapse. After a and lost consciousness for few moments we gathered a moment, as he fell upon breath and courage and the floor of the little basin then for the last stage the that occupies the summit." life line tightened with a nervous pull. We edged up along a steep snowy ridge and over the heaven- scraped granite to the top! AT LAST! The soul stir- ring task was crowned with victory, the TOP of the Continent was under our feet." The only deduction to be made from these two narra- tives is a confirmation of Dr. Cook's story by Archdea- con Stuck. This point was forcibly expressed by Sena- tor Miles Poindexter in his remarks on the floor of the Senate April 30, 1914. I quote from the Congressional Record of that date: "Previous to the so-called polar controversy every one who had ever been associated with Cook in exploring expeditions spoke well of his char- acter and ability. When the polar controversy arose and grew bitter an attempt was made to dis- credit Cook by attacking his account of the ascent of Mount McKinley. In this matter, as in the polar trip. Dr. Cook published an account of his explorations. In Harper's Monthly Magazine for May, 1907, he described the physical conditions and appearances of the ascent and the summit of McKinley. This was published in book form in 1908. Previous to these publications no one had ever described the summit of McKinley. No one claimed to know its conditions or appearances. He described minutely the 'northeast ridge,' its sharp summit, and the route by it to the extreme summit of the mountain ; the great upstanding granite rocks at the point of approach to the Me- dian Glacier, or Grand Basin, lying between the north and south peaks of the extreme summit ; the 1 two summit peaks themselves ; and that the south peak is the higher of the two. No one had ever stated these facts before Dr. Cook's publication of them. No one ever claimed to know them be- fore Cook's ascent of the mountain. They coulci only be ascertained by an ascent of the mountain. In Scribner's Magazine for November, 191o, Archdeacon Hudson Stuck publishes an account of his own subsequent ascent of the mountain. In it he corroborates in every material feature Cook's previously published account of the sharp backbone of the northeast ridge ; the difficulties of its ascent; the great granite rocks at the en- trance to the Grand Basin; the Median Glacier; the north and south peaks ; and that the south peak is the higher. It is difficult to explain Dr. Cook's previously published accurate description of these things, the first ever given, except by admitting his actual ascent of the mountain's summit." The fact that Archdeacon Stuck failed to bring back with him the brass tube left by Dr. Cook proves nothing. In common with other glacial peaks, the summit of Mount McKinley is at times windswept, "heaven-scraped gran- ite" ; at other times covered with a great depth of snow. When Archdeacon Stuck made the ascent in June, se^/en years after Dr. Cook's conquest of the mountain in Sep- tember, the summit was covered with snow. This alone, irrespective of the other natural changes which are con- stantly taking place in a glacial summit, would account for Archdeacon Stuck's failure to find Dr. Cook's rec- ords, even if he had looked for them, which apparently he did not do. Although Stuck's first story of his ascent is fairly en- tertaining, some of his statements were sharply criticised by other writers and travelers. Under date of December 30, 1913, the noted geographical historian, Edwin Swift Balch, in an open letter to the New York Sun, said : (New York Sun of December 31, 1913.) K2 "To THE Editor of The Sun — Sir: In the November Scribner's Magazine, page 552, 18 Archdeacon Stuck makes the following statements : 'The English geographers prefer K2, the sur- veyor's designation of the second highest peak of the Himalayas, which the Duke of the Abruzzi climbed in 1909, the highest point ever reached by man.' This will undoubtedly be news to all mountain climbers and geographers, and especially to the Duke of the Abruzzi himself, to whom the Arch- deacon should cable at once the glad tidings." (Signed) Edwin Swift Balch. To this Archdeacon Stuck replied, in the New York Sun of January 3, 1914 : K2 "To THE Editor of The Sun — Sir: I have waited more than two months for Mr. Edwin Swift Balch's letter, and am glad that he has at length discovered my mistake. I discovered it myself weeks before the article was published in Scribner's Magazine, but not in time to get the correction made. The annoying thing about it is that K2 and the Duke of the Abruzzi were a mere flourish of embellishment to show how much I knew about mountain climbing, dragged in by the scruff of their necks, so to speak. * * *" (Signed) Hudson Stuck, Archdeacon of the Yukon. So much for the magazine article. In February, 1914, Archdeacon Stuck published his book : "The Ascent of Denali (Mount McKinley) ," Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, in which he makes copious and elaborate additions to, as well as important omissions from his original narrative, with apparently but one ob- ject in mind — to discredit Dr. Cook. Why this sudden change of attitude? What influence — flnancial or otherwise — was brought to bear on the reverend gentleman to induce him to make such patheti- cally strenuous — though futile — eff"orts to discredit this straightforward, truthful account of one brother ex- plorer — Dr. Cook — and bolster up the tottering structure of flimsy falsehoods erected by another — Belmore 19 Browne? The writer does not attempt to answer this inquiry, though the inference is plain. It must also be remembered that this pious missionary, in his ambition to prove himself the first to stand on the top of the Con- tinent, fails to credit Lloyd with his ascent of the south- ern (the higher) peak. The dedication of the book to Sir Martin Conway seems a little presumptuous on the part of the author, as there is small community of achievement between one of the world's greatest travelers, climbers and explorers, and the itinerant Alaskan preacher who was literally dragcjed to the culmination of his highest climb by his sturdy com- panions. Stuck's carelessness in detail is plainly shown in his attempted Scriptural quotations. Although a "D. D." and an Archdeacon, presumably (?) familiar with his Bible, neither of the two quotations from the Psalms on page 110, nor the one on page 115, nor the one from Matthew on page xiii (Preface) is correct. (See Psalm 148, verse 8 ; Psalm 65, verse 6 ; Psalm 50, verse 1 ; and Matthew 12, verse 34.) On page xiii (Preface) Dr. Stuck says he is "no pro- fessed explorer or climber or 'scientist,' but a missionary, and of these matters an amateur only." If inaccurate in his quotation of the most familiar lines from the Text Book of his chosen profession, what dependence can we place on his observations and conclusions in a field where he is admittedly a novice, but nevertheless considers him- self competent to criticise and condemn an experienced explorer? As already noted. Archdeacon Stuck in his magazine article directly contradicted Belmore Browne's statement relative to the flagstaff planted on the North Peak by the Lloyd party. In his book he attempts to reconcile this discrepancy by saying, on page 172: "It (the flagstaff") is, indeed, only just visible with the naked eye from certain points on the upper glacier and quite invisible at any lower or more distant point." 20 And again on page 173 : "It would never be seen with the naked eye save by those who were intently searching for it." This friendly effort to put Messrs. Browne and Parker right on the subject fails of its purpose, however, for Mr. Browne says in his book on pages 340 and 341, as pre- viously quoted: "Every rock and snow slope of that approach had come into the field of our powerful binoculars. We * * * gr^^ j^Q sign of a flag-pole," etc. Mr. Browne was certainly "intently searching for it," and 7iot with "the naked eye." Try again, Brother Stuck! Stuck reports that he was unable to find Parker's ther- mometer which he had left "in a crevice on the highest rock of the main ridge" (see page 349 of "The Conquest of Mount McKinley"), as quoted by Stuck, "in a crack on the west side of the last boulder of the northeast ridge." Stuck accounts for his failure to find the thermometer by saying, on page 120, when referring to his own rec- ord, which was left much lower than Parker's thermome- ter: "There would, however, have been little use in leaving it amid the boulders where we hunted un- successfully for Professor Parker's instrument." Also on page 119 he says: "Above, we had not found any distinctive place in which a record could be deposited with the as- surance that it would be found bv anyone seeking it." Is it not inconsistent to lay great stress on the fact that Dr. Cook's record, left in a brass tube a few feet below the summit, has not been found? It is on pages 161 to 166, inclusive, however, that Arch- deacon Stuck makes his most direct attack on Dr. Cook's veracity. If veracity is to be questioned, however, it is ■21 not that of Dr. Cook in his narrative, but that of Stuck in his criticism. It is irritating- to the point of exaspera- tion to find a man whose profession lends weight to his unsupported word, guilty of such inaccuracies and worse, in his attempt to deny the achievement of a fellow trav- eler. On page 165 Stuck says: "Dr. Cook talks about 'the heaven-scraped gran- ite of the top' and 'the dazzling whiteness of the frosted granite blocks' and prints a photograph of the top showing granite slabs. There is no rock of any kind on the South (the higher) Peak above nineteen thousand feet. The last one thousand five hundred feet of the mountain is all permanent snow and ice." On page 233 of "To the Top of the Continent," Dr. Cook mentions as most impressive "the curious low dark sky, the dazzling bi-igJityie.'iS (not whitoie.'^s) of the frosted granite blocks," etc. and his photograph of the summit certainly shows rock. Archdeacon Stuck's statement that "There is no rock of any kind above nineteen thousand feet" is especially interesting, for opposite page 102 of his book he shows a picture of "Denali's Wife from the summit of Denali," in which bare, "Heaven-scraped" granite is plainly shown but a short distance from the summit of Denali (Mount McKinley). Apparently a mis-statement on the part of someone — but not Dr. Cook. Again Stuck says of Dr. Cook (page 165) : "In his account of the view from the summit he speaks of 'the ice-blink caused by the extensive glacial sheets north of the Saint Elias group,' 22 which would surely be out of the range of any possible vision, but does not mention at all the master sight that bursts upon the eye when the summit is actually gained — the great mass of 'Denali's Wife,' or Mount Foraker filling all the middle distance." 1. Dr. Cook does not "in his account of the view from the summit" speak of the ice-blink, etc. On page 229 of his book he writes : <<* * * ^g started for the culminating peak (2000 feet above). The sun soon rose far above the green lowland beyond Mount Hayes and moved toward the ice-blink caused by the extensive glacial sheets north of the St. Elias group." (It is certainly difficult for Archdeacon Stuck to correctly quote miiithing) . 2. In his description of the summit Dr. Cook says: "Fifty thousand square miles of our arctic won- derland was spread out under our enlarged horizon, but we could see it only in sections. Various trains of morning clouds screened the lowlands and en- twined the lesser peaks." On page 104 Stuck writes regarding the view from the summit: "Only once, perhaps, in any lifetime is such vision granted. Not often in the summer time does Denali completely unveil himself and dismiss the clouds from all the earth beneath." And again on pages 107-108 : "In all human probability I would never climb that mountain again ; yet if I climbed it a score more times I would never be likely to repeat such vision. Commonly, only for a few hours at a time, never for more than a few days at a time, save in the dead of winter when climbing is out of the O'i question, does Denali completely unveil himself and dismiss the clouds from all the earth beneath him * * * As the needle turns to the mag- net, so the clouds find an irresistible attraction in this great mountain mass." Does not a thoughtful person find in the above a logical reason for Dr. Cook's failure to report the "master sight" of Denali's Wife (Mount Foraker) ? But as previously stated, Archdeacon Stuck's strongest criticism of Dr. Cook's picture of the summit is the fact that his photograph shows rock and that he mentions "heaven-scraped granite" in his description, while Stuck claims there is no rock of any kind on the highest peak within 1500 feet of the summit. Yet opposite page 102 of Stuck's book is a fine photogravure picture, taken from the summit by Stuck himself, which plainly shows "gran- ite slabs." Archdeacon Stuck attempts to discredit Dr. Cook's ascent of the mountain by claiming that Cook's picture of the summit shows rock where he (Stuck) claims none exists. How then, does Stuck explain the "granite slabs" in his own picture of the summit? And this is the man — himself not an American — who makes an impassioned appeal in his book for the removal of the name of an honored, martyred President of the United States from the highest mountain on the North American continent, situated on United States territory; and the placing thereon of the name "Denali," which this itinerant circuit rider claims is the Indian name. As a matter of fact the name "Denali" is unknown among the Alaskan Indians except by one small tribe. Other tribes had other designations for it ; but in 1896 the moun- tain was "discovered" by W. A. Dickey and by him named "Mount McKinley." Let the name of McKinley stand, The illustrations on pp. 28 and 29 are photographic re- productions of Dr. Cook's "Summit of Mount McKinley" ("To the Top of the Continent" facing page 226) ; and of Belmore Browne's "Fake Peak" ("The Conquest of 24 Mount McKinley" facing page 122), which is Mr. Browne's "star" picture and is considered by him his strongest argument against Dr. Cook. Note the errors in comparison made by Mr, Browne: On page 122 of his book Belmore Browne states that he found much more snow than did Cook. Granting that, how does Mr. Browne explain the fact that in his own picture there is no snow at all over that part of the Peak which in Dr. Cook's photograph shows a clear outline against the sky? With a greater depth of snow, why are the rocks in Mr. Browne's picture as clear cut as on a sunny summer day? How does Mr. Browne explain the sharply cut dark outline between the snow and rock of his picture? How does Mr. Browne explain the three sharp peaks on a level with the man's feet, in his picture? How does Mr. Browne explain the fact that the man in the foreground of his picture is apparently standing in snow halfway to his knees, and yet no footprints are visible? How could a man walk to the place where he is shown in the picture without leaving footprints in the snow? In Dr. Cook's photograph the footprints are seen all along the line of the "hogback." Mr. Browne claims that he photographed his picture from exactly the same point as did Cook ; yet Browne is looking at the peak or summit in a direction almost at right angles to the line of the "hogback," while Cook looks at the peak in a direction parallel with and along the line of the "hogback" — not across it. On page 117 of his book Mr. Browne claims that Dr. Cook's camera was pointing upwards. How does Mr. Browne explain the fact that Cook's photograph shows more below the line of footprints on the "hogback" than it does above that line, i. e., a greater depth than eleva- tion? In Dr. Cook's picture one looks down a greater dis- tance than up; also, one looks down into every footprint along the "hogback." Thus the camera was not point- ing upwards, as Browne claims. On page 346 of his book Mr. Browne says: "We had not stood on the top." On page 342 he states that during the hist 1000 feet of their upward climb, owing to the raging blizzard which they encountered, they were unable to read the dials of their barometers or distinguish objects. Even the forms of their companions were but indistinct blurs. With these statements in mind, on what authority does Mr. Browne assert that Dr. Cook's close range, detailed photograph of the summit is not a view of the summit? Since Mr. Browne himself admits that he did not stand on the top, and was unable to see anything within 1000 feet of the top, how does he know what the top looks like? Many other points of difference are easily detected, all of which expose Mr. Browne's weak, childish attempt to palm off his composite picture as a photograph from na- ture ; while Dr. Cook's picture is unmistabably a photo- graph from nature. Thus Belmore Browne and Archdeacon Hudson Stuck are both convicted, each on false statements, each on his principal picture, by which he sought to convict an inno- cent man. But what bearing has Mount McKinley on the so-called Polar Controversy? Why does Belmore Browne entitle a chapter in his book "The End of the Polar Controversy"? Because thousands of people assert that their only rea- son for disbelieving Dr. Cook's claim of Polar discovery is the doubt that has been cast on his ascent of Mount McKinley; and if his veracity concerning his climb of Mount McKinley could be established beyond question, they would unhesitatingly accept his claim to the dis- covery of the North Pole. Until Dr. Cook's return from the North in 1909, his truthfulness, honor, scientific ability and attainments 26 were unquestioned; indeed Robert E. Peary is quoted as publicly saying: "If anybody can discover the North Pole, Dr. Cook is that man." Cook's fortitude and ability while with Peary on his Northern trip when he discovered that Greenland was an island, so gained the respect and admiration of Peary that he made the above statement while on a lecture tour of the Southwest, and at various other times. (See New York Herald, September 9, 1909, page 4.) Not only verbally did Mr. Peary speak in the highest terms of Dr. Cook, but in his book "Northward Over the Great Ice" he makes personal mention of Dr. Cook (who was official surgeon and ethnologist of the expedition) eighty-five times ; on page 423, which is especially referred to in the index, he pays Dr. Cook the following tribute: "To Dr. Cook's care may be attributed the almost complete exemption of the party from even the mildest indispositions, and personally I owe much to his professional skill and unruffled patience and coolness in an emergency. In addition to his work in his especial ethnological field, in which he has obtained a large amount of most valuable material concerning a practically unstudied tribe, he was always helpful and an indefatigable worker." Pages 114 to 121, inclusive, of the above-mentioned volume are devoted to Dr. Cook's report of special work among the Eskimos, and on page 438, among the recorded "Results of the Expedition," Mr. Peary includes the fol- lowing : "The first complete and accurate information of the peculiar and isolated tribe of Arctic High- landers, by Dr. Cook." Nor was Mr. Peary alone in his high opinion of Dr. Cook. Raoul Olivier, a member of the Executive Com- 27 mittee of the Belgian Antarctic Expedition of 1897, in an interview with a representative of the New York Times on September 18th, 1909, expressed the opinion that Bel- gian scientists generally had full confidence in Dr. Cook, who won the esteem and admiration of the Belgian Com- mittee and the Belgica Antarctic Expedition of which he was a member, by his quiet and unassuming demeanor, his integrity and his determination. Prior to Dr. Cook's return from the North in 1909, it was universally conceded that he was the first man to attain the summit of Mount McKinley. When his de- feated rival in the race for the North Pole made his nefa- rious attempt to discredit Dr. Cook's Mount McKinley ascent, many were convinced, as stated above, that if Cook's climb of Mount McKinley could be proven beyond question, no further cause would exist to doubt his Polar attainment. The crucial problem of Cook's detractors, therefore, was to efi:ectually discredit his Mount McKin- ley ascent, a problem which they proceeded to meet by the most cruel, cowardly and dastardly methods imagin- able. The weapons, however, with which Dr. Cook's enemies attacked him have proved boomerangs that have only served to demolish their own claims ; and Belmore Browne and his associate, the pseudo-"Professor" Parker, are proven by their own words and pictures to be de- liberate and calculating fakers and falsifiers ; while Archdeacon Hudson Stuck, to say the least is proven in- accurate, unobservant and unreliable; therefore, since none of the three — or any other — has produced one iota of proof that Dr. Cook did not reach the summit of Mount McKinley, but on the contrary, has unwittingly and un- willingly corroborated his successful ascent, is it not time for the people of this country, and for the representatives of the people in the Congress of the United States, to give due credit and recognition to Dr. Frederick A. Cook, who was actually the first man to conquer Mount McKinley's formidable height, and who, by every logical deduction of practical reasoning, and by every scientific fact, is proven to have been the first man to reach the North Pole. 28 Summit of Mt. McKinley, photographically reproduced from Dr. Cook's origi- nal photograph published in his book, "To the Top of the Continent," in 1908 : 1 2 3 4 5 (i 7 8 9 i 1 J i 1 " ■•• .'.,■■■■■ jjsr" ! .*^ ^ iir ^in :^Sk tSdM MMi^l^ (Copyright. 190S, l)y F. A. Cook and Harper & Bros.) The dividing lines over this picture and the picture on the opposite page repre- sent squares and their subdivisions. The lines on each picture are drawn to the same scale, and the corresponding lines litar the same letters and num1)ers on each i)icture. The perpendicular line, ti and (i, and the horizontal line, A and A, touch the same fixed objects in each picture. Thus : Note divisions F and G, and s and '.» ; in the N. K. corner in Browne's picture is distant mountain; in the N. E. corner in Cook's ])icture is foreground mountain. In Browne's i)icture, distant mountain top goes almost to D. In Cook's pic- ture, distant mountain top is just above I*". In Browne's picture, rock shows in S. \L corner of 4 and ."). just above A. In Cook's picture, although summit is snow-co\ered, neither rock nor snow shows in that division. In Browne's picture, C to D and 1 to 2, is C()m])letely tilled with solid rock. In Cook's picture, sky shows in N. VV. corner of that division. In Browne's picture, distant mountain goes into 7 and s ; in Ct)ok's picture, distant mountain is visible only after !)th line is passed. The above are only a few instances which could be multiplied many times. Any one of these, however, is proof that the two pictures are not pictures of the same summit or rock. Furthermore, the technique of the two pictures shows that Cook's is a photograph from Nature, while Browne's is unquestional)ly a laboratory re])roduction. 29 This i)icturc is pli(ili\i4r;i])liic-all.\- i^'pnuhuHMl fnun lU'lmnre I'row lu-'s i)icture pposite page 1:.':.' of Iiis liook. "'IMk' C\)ii(|iu'st -^ -^^ cy ^ ' . . ' .0^ •^ (-0 ■ -^ ' « <- ^ ' o . « C t-. ^"^ 'j^' FLA. A ^ ^^,^' x^^-^.