} （, ， .
ſae
--~~~~*~*=~ ，
::：::：::::::::::::：
§§§§§§
∞ √°.'，
§§

****************t）*xxxxxx-xew gºrewiaewº - n.aeg
HOR
|×
ſå
?
£ €
z ！
§ 4
! 2
Ķ
Ë Ë
ß ·
::.*?…?
******…; ;
*** ???

ſº
J.
A ‘2 , )
A $.”
Ö
/ ? 2 3
2-)
D id w Commander # Peary º
‘ACHIEVE"
THE NORTH POLE
; t
JA }}}} Hºjº,
AN AWAZYSIS OF PEAR ris MARRA7/v/.
* BY w N. Johnson * , , ' ' ' ' ,
*-

Foreword
ſpeFORE sending this brochure to the printer, I desire
to make some explanation of the reasons for publishing
it at this late day. The paper was written early in February
1911, and sent to Hon. R. B. Macon, who was at that
time leading the opposition in the House of Representative
to a bill providing for the promotion and retirement as a
Rear Admiral of Commander Robert E. Peary, als a re-
ward for Arctic explorations. The paper reached Congress-
man Macon after he had concluded his argument againt the
bill, and no use was made of it.
It will bé remembered that, prior to Peary's return from
the North. Dr. Frederick A. Cook had announced the dis-
covery of the North Pole, in April, 1908; al claim which
Wra.S generally accepted at the time but which Peary de-
nounced in unmeasured terms upon his return to civilization.
By al singular circumstance Dr. Cook learned, in 1914,
of the existance of this paper, and called upon me. I found
him to be a modest, self-restrained gentleman, with every
appearance of an honest man. After making Dr. Cook's
acquaintance, I read his book “My Attainment of the
Pole,” which I had not theretofore read, and from its
perusal I became convinced of the genuineness of his claim
-—that is, SO far a.S all ordinary layman could form 3. just
conclusion concerning a matter which could only be de-
finitely determined by the investigation of disinterested
scientists and experts. I have satisfied myself, from the
reading of both Commander Peary's and Dr. Cook's nar-
ratives, that the latter is a much maligned and greatly
wronged Tºtaliºl.
At the last session of Congress, a bill was introduced
providing for the recognition of Dr. Cook as the real "dis-
coverer of the North Pole, and in all probability a like
bill will be introduced at the coming session of Congress.
At the suggestion of some of my friends, and in the hope
that the contents of this paper may be of SOHOle little service
in righting the wrongs from which Dr. Cook has suffered,
I am sending it to the press.
W. N. JOHNSON
Chicago, June 14th, 1915
Did Commander Peary
‘‘ACHIEVE.”
THE NORTH POLE)
An Analysis of Peary's Narrative
The claim made by Commander Peary that
he reached the goal, for which he had labored
for a quarter of a century, on the 6th day of
April, 1909, has been generally acquiesced in
by the American people, the more readily,
no doubt, because of the unflagging per-
severence and the unfaltering courage he has
displayed during all these years which have
been filled with danger, hardship and priva-
tion, alternating hope and discouragement.
There are those, however, who are unwilling
to accept Commander Peary's claim to the
“discovery” of the North Pole upon the evi-
dence thus far produced. To the layman
the evidence upon which he must rest his
opinion of the merits of Peary's claim must
be found in Peary's own statement of the
manner in which the alleged attainment of
the North Pole was accomplished. This
statement was published in Hampton's Maga-
zine during the year 1910, under the title
“The Discovery of the North Pole,” since
which time there has been published Peary's
“The North Pole,” which is substantially the
same as the narrative in Hampton's, with
here and there some seemingly unimportant,
but, in fact, singular variations. If one will
read either or both of these literary produc-
tions of Commander, Peary carefully, he will
be surprised to find many inaccuracies and
inconsistencies—a sufficient number in fact
to cause him to doubt the legitimacy of Peary's
claim to have reached the North Pole. A
careful analysis of Peary's own story of how
his feat was accomplished will serve to either
prove or discredit his claim. Such analysis
is the purpose of this article, made with an
honest desire to get at the exact truth. The
writer has, as an American, taken pride in
Peary's earlier achievements and the heroic
daring he has shown in his former efforts to
be the first to reach the North Pole, but if
Peary's claims are not based upon unim-
peachable facts he believes it would be a
mistake to give national recognition of and
reward for an achievement concerning which
there could be any question, even if such
national recognition did not eventually lead
to national shame and humiliation. A
PRELIMINARY PREPARATIONS
A 6'6.
} * * $.
"As had been planned, the expedition sailed
“from New York early in July, 1908, July 6,
“to be exact. It sailed from Sydney July 17.
“from Etah August 18, and arrived at Cape
“Sheridan, the winter quarters of the ‘Roosevelt,
“on September 5, within a quarter of an hour
“of the same time it had arrived at the same
“spot three years before. The winter was
“occupied in hunting, in various side journeys,
“in making our sledge equipment, and in mov-
“ing supplies from the ‘Roosevelt’ along the
"northern shore of Grant Land to Cape Columbia,
"which was to be our point of departure from
“the land on our drive for the Pole itself.”
(The North Pole, page 6.)
The actual start for the North Pole was
made on the morning of March 1, 1909, when
Peary's expedition left Cape Columbia on its
weary journey for the Pole, 413 geographical
miles distant.
THE CHARACTER OF THE ROUTE
Commander Peary has graphically depicted
the difficulties and obstacles to be encountered
in the following language, which was written
after his return from his alleged achievement.
“There is no smooth and very little level ice
"between Cape Columbia and the North
"Pole. For a few miles only after leaving
“land we had level going, as for those few
"miles we were on the 'glacial fringe’ ” “ ” *
"Beyond the glacial fringe is the indescribable
"surface of the shore lead, or tidal crack–
"that zone of unceasing conflict between the
"heavy floating ice and the stationary glacial
"fringe. This shore lead is constantly open-
"ing and shutting; opening when there are
"off-shore winds or spring ebb tides, crushing
"shut when there are northerly winds or
“spring tides. Here the ice is smashed into
"fragments of all sizes and piled up into
"pressure ridges parallel with the shore.
“The ice is smashed into these ridges by the
"sheer and unimaginable force with which
“the floes coming down from the north are
"driven against the edge of the glacial fringe,
"just as farther out the pressure ridges are
“caused by the force with which the floes
"themselves are crushed and smashed together
“by the force of the wind and the tides.
"These pressure ridges may be anywhere
"from a few rods to a quarter of a mile in .
"width; the chunks of ice of which they are
"composed may vary from pieces the size of
"a billiard ball to pieces the size of a small
"house. Going over these pressure ridges
"we have to pick our trail as best we can,
"often hacking our way with pickaxes, en-
“couraging the dogs by whip and voice to
“follow the leader, lifting the five-hundred-
"pound loaded sledges over hummocks and
"up acclivities – a labor that sometimes
"seemed to tear the muscles from our shoulder
"blades. Between the pressure ridges are the
“floes, more or less level * * * * * They are
“made up of great sheets of ice which have
“drifted out into the Polar Sea from the
“glacial fringe of Grant Land and Greenland
"and regions to the westward. These fields
"of ice are anywhere from less than twenty
“to over one hundred feet in thickness and
“they are all shapes and sizes. As a result of
“the constant movement of the ice during
“the brief summer when great fields are
"detached from the glaciers and are driven
"one way and another under the impulse of
“the wind and the tides—impinging against
“each other, splitting in two by the violence
"of contact with other large fields, crushing
"up thinner ice between them, having their
"edges shattered and piled up into pressure
“ridges—the surface of the Polar Sea during
“the winter may be one of almost unimagin-
"able uneveness and roughness. Nine-
“tenths of the surface of the Polar Sea is
“made up of these floes, the other one-tenth,
“the ice between the floes, is formed by the
“direct freezing of the sea water each autumn.”
(Hampton's, June 774 et seq.)
To further emphasize and enforce this
description of the indescribable difficulties of
the journey, there appears a photographic il-
lustration on page 775 with this inscription,
—“A frequent incident of the Pole journey, -
The united strength of the three Eskimos with
a dog team is required to push and pull a
loaded sledge up on a pressure ridge.” Be-
neath it on the same page is another, thus
inscribed: “Making one sledge out of two
broken ones—The traveling was so rough that
it was necessary very frequently to reconstruct
the sledges.” On page 776 is another illus-
tration showing great piles and hummocks of
ice with the inscription: “A typical stretch of
the ice over which the expedition made its
way to the Pole—Eskimos digging through
the ice for a “sounding.” Then on page 779
is still another, “Looking out over the Polar
"Sea from the bluffs at Cape Columbia–
“In the middle distance an old floe covered
"with snow.” But the most convincing of
all is an illustration on page 781 showing
"The expedition working its way across rough,
"rubble ice–This was the average sort of
"road during the polar journey.” Over this
route, little less than impassable, as shown
by vivid pen painting and photographs of the
actual conditions and the "average sort of
road during the polar journey” the expedition
was about to make its way. There was,
however, still another and more formidable
obstacle in the way, which Commander Peary
explains as follows: “But the pressure ridges
"described above are not the worst features
“of the Arctic. Far more troublesome and
“dangerous are the 'leads' (the whalers'
"term for lanes of open water) which are
“caused by the movement of the ice under
"the pressure of the wind and the tides.
“These are the ever-present nightmare of the
“traveler over the frozen surface of the Polar
"Ocean—the night-mare on the upward jour-
"ney for fear that they may prevent farther
"advance; the nightmare on the return trip
“for fear they may cut us off from land and
"life, leaving us to wander about and starve
“to death on the northern side. Their occur-
"rence or non-occurrence is a thing impossible
“to prophesy or calculate. They open with-
"out warning immediately ahead of us, follow-
"ing no apparent rule or law of action. They
"are the X of the Polar equation.” (Hamp-
ton's, June, 776.) Further describing them
he continues: “A lead might open right
"through our camp, or through one of the
"snow igloos, when we are sleeping on the
“surface of the Polar Sea. Should the ice
"open across the bed platform of an igloo,
"and precipitate the men into the icy water
"below, they would not readily drown, be-
“cause of the bouyance of the air inside their
"fur clothing. A man dropping into the
"water in this way could probably be extri-
"cated in time; but with the thermometer
“at 50° below zero, it would not be a pleasant
"possibility.” (Hampton's, June, 777.)
Commander Peary has summarized the
immensity of the undertaking which con-
fronted him as he swung out from Cape
Columbia on his weary and heart-breaking
march to the Pole, in this tale of his journey,
which is written after his return and with a
realization of his experience still vivid in his
mind: “The difficulties and hardships of a
“journey to the North Pole are too complex
"to be summed up in a paragraph. But,
“briefly, the worst of them are: “The ragged
"and mountainous ice over which we must
“travel with our heavily loaded sledges; the
"often terrific wind, having the impact of a
"wall of water, which we must march against
at times; the open ‘leads' already described,
which we must cross and re-cross, somehow;
"the intense cold, sometimes as low as 60°
"below zero, through which we must by fur
"clothing and constant activity, keep our
"flesh from freezing; the difficulty of drag-
"ging out and back over the ragged and
‘‘‘lead’ broken trail enough pemmican, bis-
"cuit, tea, condensed milk and liquid fuel to
"keep sufficient strength in our bodies for
"traveling. It was so cold much of the time
"that the brandy was frozen solid, the petro-
"leum white and viscid, and the dogs could
'hardly be seen for the steam of their breath.
"The minor discomfort of building every
"night our narrow and uncomfortable snow
"houses and the cold bed platform of that
"igloo on which we must snatch such hours
"of rest as the exigencies of our desperate
"enterprise permitted us, seems hardly worth
"mentioning in comparison with the difficul-
"ties of the main proposition itself. At
“times we marched all day long facing a
“blinding snow storm, with the bitter wind
“searching every opening in our clothing.
“Those of my readers who have ever been
“obliged to walk for even an hour against a
“blizzard, with the temperature 10° or 20°
“above zero, probably have a vivid recollection
“of the experience. Probably they also re-
‘‘member how welcome was the warm fireside
“of home at the end of their journey. But
“let them imagine tramping through such a
“storm all day long, over jagged and uneven
“ice, with the temperature 15° and 30° below
“zero and no shelter to look forward to at the
“end of the day's march, except a narrow and
“cold snow house which they would them-
“selves be obliged to build in that very storm
“before they could eat or rest.” (Hampton's,
June, 778.)
THE FIRST STAGE OF THE JOURNEY
The Expedition got off before light of
March first from Cape Columbia on the north-
ward venture, composed of six white men,
one negro and seventeen Eskimos. Their
provisions were loaded on nineteen sledges,
drawn by 133 dogs, seven dogs to each sledge,
(Hampton's, June, 773.) Each sledge carried
provisions for men and dogs and clothing for
the driver. The standard sledge load would
support the driver and the dog team for
about fifty days. (Hampton's, June, 783.)
Except for alcohol stove and cooking utensils,
each sledge was complete in itself. Each of
the Eskimos drove one dog team and sledge
as also did Marvin and McMillan. The party
was divided into seven divisions, one of which
was to act as pioneer division for five marches,
after which it was to give place to another
and then return to the ship and there remain.
The pioneer division was to make one march
each twenty-four hours, no matter what were
the weather conditions, breaking the trail as
it went. Bartlett's division took the lead
but on March 4th was held up by a "Big
Lead” where Peary found him that evening.
They were then about forty-five miles from
Cape Columbia; their four marches having
averaged a little over eleven miles a march
or per day. Here they were held up until
March 11th (six days) when the lead closed
and they proceeded.
The journey northward was one continual
struggle with Nature in the shape of rough
and jagged ice, enormous pressure ridges and
open leads and with the cold ranging between
20° and 50° below zero. Frequent delays
were necessary to repair broken or damaged
sledges. Some conception of the test placed
upon the physical endurance of the men and
dogs may be had by reading the following
extract of his march on the 27th of March:
“This march was by far the hardest for some
"days. At first there was a continuation of
“the broken and raftered recent ice, sharp
"and jagged, that at times seemed almost to
"cut through our sealskin kamiks (shoes) and
"hareskin: stockings, to pierce our feet; then
"we struck heavy rubble ice covered with
"deep snow, through which we had literally
"to plow our way, lifting and steadying the
sledges until our muscles ached.” (Hamp-
ton's, July, 17.). "This march netted us
"twelve good miles toward the goal” (Same).
The expedition crossed the eighty-fourth
parallel on this march. During the night of
March 28th a "lead” opened between Bart-
lett's division and Peary's which nearly proved
disastrous, but eventually they rejoined each
other. On the 29th they were delayed by
this "lead” all day and until eight o'clock on
the morning of the 30th, when the lead closed
and they crossed. Of this portion of their
route Peary says: "The entire region which
"we had traversed during the last four marches
“was full of unpleasant possibilities of the
"future. Violent wind for even a few hours
“would set the ice all abroad in every direc-
"tion. Crossing such a zone on a journey
"north is only half the problem, for there is
"always the return to figure on.” (Hampton's,
August, 166.) *
On March 31st Bartlett made his last
northward march, after which he was to
return to the ship; the other "supporting
divisions” Dr. Goodsell, McMillan, Borup
and Marvin having already turned southward
at intervals of five marches. Bartlett had
intended to cover twenty-five miles on his
last pioneer march, but he failed for the
following reason: "Had it been clear we
“should undoubtedly have covered twenty-
“five miles in this march, but it is difficult to
"break a trail in thick weather and this day
“netted us only about twenty miles.” (Hamp-
ton’s, August, 166). On April 1st. Bartlett
started for a walk of five or six miles in order
to make sure of reaching the eighty-eighth
parallel, which, however, he failed to do.
While Bartlett was away Peary picked out the
best dogs from Bartlett's teams, replacing
them with the poorer dogs of the main party.
The dogs were, on the whole, in excellent con-
dition. “Most of those I now selected for
the dash were powerful males, as hard as
"iron, in good condition, without an ounce of
"superfluous fat, and all in good spirits.”
(Hampton's, August, 168.) Upon Bartlett's
return from his “walk” he took an observa-
, tion, showing their location to be 87° 46' 49"
or 133 nautical miles from the Pole.
REASONS ASSIGNED BY PEARY FOR
TAKING NO WHITE MAN TO
THE POLE AS SECOND
I N COMMAND
At this point in his narrative Peary pauses
to give his reasons for sending Bartlett back,
instead of permitting him to accompany him
on his final dash. (Hampton's, August, 169.)
He pronounced Bartlett as invaluable to him
for various reasons, but explains why he took
his colored body servant instead. The very
reasons he assigns for taking Henson seem
sufficient for a capable and prudent com-
mander of an expedition of this character to
have so planned that either Henson should
have been in charge of the first division going
back to the ship, or else that he take the
place of one of the Eskimos who had been
selected to go to the Pole. Peary has spoken
in the highest terms of the efficiency and
value, as members of the Expedition, of
Bartlett, Marvin and Borup, and named them
in this order with respect to their value and
merit. Either of these men were capable of
making observations and in a position to con-
firm Peary's claims if he reached the Pole.
Bartlett was used to command and ordinary
prudence and regard for the safety of his
men should have dictated taking Bartlett as
second in command in event of anything be-
falling Peary himself. Concerning the value
and worth of Bartlett, Peary gives this un-
grudging testimony:-
“First and most valuable of all was Bartlett,
“master of the Roosevelt, whose ability had been
“proved on the expedition of 1905-6. Robert
“A. Bartlett, “Captain Bob,' as we affectionately
“call him, comes from a family of hardy New
“Foundland navigators, long associated with
“Arctic work. He was thirty-three when we sailed
“north. Blue-eyed, brown-haired, stocky, and
“steel-muscled Bartlett, whether at the wheel
“of the Roosevelt hammering a passage through
“the floes, or tramping and stumbling over the
“ice pack, with the sledges, or smoothing away
“the troubles of the crew, was always the same—
“tireless, faithful, enthusiastic, true to the
“compass.” (The North Pole, pg. 20.) And
again on page 269 he says:-" I had given him
“the post of honor in command of my last
"supporting party for three reasons: first,
“because of his magnificent handling of the
“Roosevelt; second, because he had cheerfully
“and gladly stood between me and every possible
“minor annoyance from the start of the expedi-
“tion to that day; third, because it seemed to
“me right that, in view of the noble work of
“Great Britain in arctic exploration, a British
“subject should, next to an American, be able
“to say that he had stood nearest the North Pole.”
Here was presented the very opportunity he
so much desired of giving a British subject
the privilege of saying that, “next to an
American, he had stood nearest to the North
Pole” while, at the same time, he would be
giving Bartlett the just reward for his “tire-
less, faithful and enthusiastic” performance of
every duty—no matter how exacting.
Of Henson, Peary says: “Henson, with his
“years of Arctic experience, was almost as
"skillful at his work as an Eskimo. He could
"handle dogs and sledges. He was a part of
“the traveling machine.” (Hampton's, August,
170.) That being so, he could have been
chosen in place of an Eskimo and thus been
given the reward which Peary assigns as one
of his reasons for taking him along to the Pole.
Peary continues: “The third reason was that
"while Henson was more useful, to me than
"any other member of my expedition, when
"it came to traveling with my last party over
“the Polar ice, he would not have been so com-
"petent as the least experienced of my white
"companions in getting himself and his party
“back to the land. If Henson had been sent
"back with one of the supporting parties from
"a distance far out on the ice, and if he had
"struck conditions similar to those which
“we had in 1906, he and his party would never
"have reached the land. While faithful to
"me, and when with me more effective in
"covering distance with a sledge than any
"of the others, he had not as a racial inheri-
"tance the daring and initiative of my Anglo-
"Saxon friends. I owed it to him not to
“subject him to dangers and responsibilities
“with which he was temperamentally unequal
“to cope.” (Hampton's, August, 170.) What
stronger reasons could have been given for
not placing Henson in the position of responsi-
bility to which Peary assigned him? For if
any accident had happened to Peary, we
have Peary's own word for it that "his party
“would never have reached the land.” Did
not Peary also owe it to every other one of
his companions “not to subject them to the
dangers” which were sure to follow the
responsibilities which might possibly fall upon
Henson, because of his "being unable to cope”
with them? There was, therefore, every
reason why one of the three confessedly
capable white men should have been taken
as second in command, in addition to the
imperative one of having unimpeachable con-
firmatory verification, by competent inde-
pendent observations, of his claims to dis-
covery of the North Pole.
“THE DASH TO THE POLE”
Peary had now arrived at a distance shown
by Bartlett's last observation of one hundred
and thirty-three nautical miles from the Pole,
having been assisted thus far—two hundred
and eighty miles—by his "relay parties,” who
had broken trail for him, sparing his men
and dogs during all that distance in order
that they might be comparatively “fresh for
the final spurt.” (Hampton's, August, 168.)
Now the time had come when the last relay
party was to return to the ship and the party
to make the trip to the Pole was making its
final preparations on April 1st for its depar-
ture. The two hundred and eighty miles
already traversed had been covered in one
month in time, but the time actually cor-
sumed in travel had been twenty-two days
or “marches,” averaging a little less than
twelve and three-fourths miles per day, the
greatest distance traveled in any one day
being twenty miles on the 24th, the 30th
and 31st of March. The last five marches
were to be the final northward marches for
Bartlett before he retraced his steps, and,
inspired by his desire to cross the eighty-
eighth parallel, he had exerted himself to the
utmost. Leaving camp at 86° 38' at four
o'clock in the afternoon of March 25th,
Bartlett started off with the determination
to bag the eighty-eighth parallel in the next
five marches (after which he was to turn
back) and I sincerely hoped he would suc-
ceed.” (Hampton's, July, 16.) Yet when he
arrived at the end of his fifth march, he had
reached only 87° 46' 49", so that in the five
marches he had covered a distance of less
than sixty-nine miles, being an average of
thirteen and four-fifths miles per day.
Nevertheless, with this experience during
the last five days, Commander Peary plans
to double that distance in the next five
marches, although he must now break his
own trail and do his own pioneering over a
region wholly unknown and the conditions of
which, as to pressure ridges, floes and leads
could not be foreseen, and build his own
igloos at the end of each march. "A little
“after midnight on morning of April 2nd,
“after a few hours of sound and refreshing
“sleep, and a hearty breakfast, I started on
“the trail to the north, leaving the others to
"pack, hitch up and follow.” (Hampton's,
August, 171.) Fortune favors him for he
records: “ The going was the best of any we
“had had since leaving land.” (Same). “We
"traveled for ten hours without stopping,
"covering, I felt sure, thirty miles; but to be
“conservative, I called it twenty-five.” (Hamp-
ton's, August, 172.) On April 3rd he was
delayed by rough ice at the beginning of the
march and in ten hours travel covered twenty
miles. A little before midnight between the
3rd and the 4th, they started on their third
march with “the weather and the going even
“better than the day before. Again we traveled
“for ten hours straight ahead, the dogs often
“on the trot and occasionally on the run;
“and in those ten hours we reeled off at least
"twenty-five miles.” (Hampton's, August,
173.) *
And here occurred a most singular circum-
stance. Commander Peary says: “I put all
“the poorer dogs in one team and began to
“kill them and feed them to the others. We
“killed them by shooting them, the quickest
"and most painless way.” (Hampton's, August
173.) Bear in mind that nowhere in the
Hampton's narrative, prior to this record is
there any report of any dog failing to meet
the demands made upon him—much less of
the necessity of killing him because he could
no longer respond to the call of his driver,
even under the very trying conditions of
“pioneering” and breaking trail. Moreover,
only three days before Peary had selected the
best dogs for the onward trip, for he says:
“Most of these I now selected for the dash
“were powerful males, as hard as iron, in
“good condition, without an ounce of super-
“fluous fat and all in good spirits.” (Hampton's,
August, 168.) “The pick of one hundred and
'forty.” (Hampton's, August, 169.) Since this
careful selection had been made and after
one day's rest, these dogs had traveled
seventy miles in three ten-hour marches of
twenty-five, twenty and twenty-five miles
each "over the best going of any they had had
“since leaving land.” Particularly on the
last march the traveling had been so fine
that "the dogs were often on the trot and
"occasionally on the run,” and in ten hours
had reeled off twenty-five miles. Yet at the
end of this march, in which the dogs—and so
far as appears from this vivid tale—all of
them, had shown they were, in fact, “hard as
iron" by equalling the highest marching
record thus far made, the poorer dogs are put
into one team and rewarded for their exer-
tions by being killed and fed to the others.
Nowhere, either in Hampton's or in “The
North Pole" does there appear any explana-
tion of why this was done. Certainly they
were not killed because of scarcity of provi-
sions, for there were plenty for forty days,
(See Hampton's, August, 171.) If some of
the dogs had shown more than ordinary
fatigue, it would seem to have been wiser to
have lightened the load for those by distribut-
ing a part of it among the others until they
had recovered; thereby retaining intact the
five full teams with which to meet the un-
known, but arduous, demands yet before
them. * i.
After a short sleep, on the evening of the
4th, they struck out again. "The going was
“the same as on the previous march,” (Hamp-
ton's, August, 173,) but the temperature was
only 35° below zero, “the sledges hauling a
"little easier when it is not quite so cold,
"and the dogs were on the trot much of the
“time.” Towards the end of the march they
came upon a lead of young ice running north
and south and on this “we traveled for two
"hours, the dogs galloping along and reeling
“off the miles in a way that delighted my
“heart.” This march found the party “pretty
"well played out and in need of rest,” so
Peary gave them a little more sleep and they
did not resume their march until "before
"midnight of the 5th.” Upon making an
observation prior to leaving this camp, Peary
found they were at 89° 25' or thirty-five miles
from the Pole. “The going was better than
ever.” “the sapphire-blue lakes were larger
"than ever,” “the temperature had risen to
“minus 15°, which, reducing the friction of
"the sledges, gave the dogs the appearance
"of having caught the spirit of the party.”
(Hampton's, August, 175.) "Some of them
“even tossed their heads and barked and
“yelped as they traveled.” (North Pole, 285.)
But see illustration on page 170 of Hampton's
for August, beneath which is this legend,
“Only Stretch of Level Going on Northward
“March—A “lake” of Young Ice, North of
“87°, Six Miles Wide,” while the “sapphire-
blue lakes” above mentioned were above
89° 25'. This last march was broken by a
rest and a lunch, but "in twelve hours' actual
“traveling we covered at least thirty miles.”
At ten o'clock in the forenoon of April 6th,
a halt was made and an observation showed
they were at 89° 57" and a distance of thirty-
two miles had been made from their last camp.
A T “THE POLE” — THE ACME OF
HUMAN AND BRUTE
ENDURANCE
One hundred and thirty miles had now been
negotiated since Bartlett had turned back,
and the "main party” had accomplished this
wonderful undertaking in five marches; aver-
aging "twenty-five to twenty-six miles”
(Hampton's, August, 174,) pioneering their
own way, breaking their own trail and making
their own igloos. After the noon observation
had been taken, igloos built and dinner eaten,
Peary takes a few hours of much needed rest,
but arises in time to take an observation at
6 P. M., and here begins a series of operations
which seem to have been a little less than
superhuman and the account of which taxes
human credulity. They may be recited
briefly:
(a) At 6 P. M. went on an estimated
distance of ten miles.
(b) At end of journey took a satisfactory
series of observations, indicating his position
as being beyond the Pole.
(c) Went back along the trail ten miles to
Camp.
(d) At 6 A. M. April 7th, took another
series of observations at right angles to those
previously made.
(e) Went in direction of his observations
eight miles.
(f) Returned over eight miles trail to
Camp. ſº *
(g) At noon took another satisfactory
series of observations, all of the “observations
thus taken comprised thirteen single, or six
and a half double, altitudes of the sun, at two
different stations, in three different directions,
at four different times, ānd to allow for errors
in instruments and observations, had traversed
in various directions an area of about eight
by ten miles across.” (Hampton's, August,
176.)
(h) Hoisted in succession the five flags he
had brought with him.
(i) During those last few hours, busied
himself with taking photographs of the locali-
ty, of the flags on their hummock of ice and
of his five companions.
(j) Searched the horizon carefully through
his telescope for signs of land.
(k) Had his men search for a strip of recent
ice thin enough to make a sounding through.
(1) Deposited between ice blocks of a
pressure ridge a glass bottle containing a
strip of his flag and his records (the time of
making which are not stated, but should be
noted.)
(m) Prepared records which were deposited
in bottle.
(n) In the afternoon, after flying flags and
taking photographs they entered their igloos
and Peary tried to sleep, but could not, neither
could his Eskimos. So he arises and finding
Henson and his men “equally wakeful,” the
party sets out for the first camp south, which
Peary's observation had shown to be thirty-
two miles away--at about four o'clock in the
afternoon of April 7th. This camp was
reached "in good time.”
No mention is made of the time consumed
in traveling this thirty-two miles, but it is
fair to assume that "in good time” would be
equal to that of the northward journey, which
was twelve hours, with an interval for tea
and lunch. The elapsed time, therefore, from
6 P. M. of the 6th, to this camp would be
about thirty-four hours, calculating the arrival
at this camp at 4 A. M. of April 8th.
Whatever his companions had done during
this time to rest and recuperate, Commander
Peary had found no time to do so, as the
schedule of his activities given above will
show. In order to understand and appreciate
just what he did in that thirty-four hours, it
must be borne in mind that, in addition to
taking thirteen observations, which neces-
sarily included his mathematical calculations;
writing out his records for deposit in the glass
bottle; hoisting one after the other his five
flags and making photographs of the polar
regions, the flags and his companions—all of
which consumed time and vitality——he had
marched ten miles beyond the Pole and ten
miles returning; eight miles at right angles
and eight miles returning and then thirty-two
miles to camp at 89° 25' a total distance of
sixty-eight nautical miles without rest or
sleep. To better realize the superhuman
feat which Peary relates in his matter-of-fact
manner, it is well to remember that a “nauti-
cal” or “geographical” mile is 6080 feet long;
that is 800 feet longer than our statute mile
of 5280 feet. Reduced to statute miles, he
had traveled 78 miles 1600 feet in Thirty Four
Hours, besides doing all the other things above
recited. Surely the limit of human endurance
would seem to have been reached. But “after
a few hours sleep we hurried on again, Eskimos
and dogs on the qui vive.” Even the dogs appear
to have imbibed the desire to beat all records
and a double march was made. The exact
distance of the fourth and fifth, upward
marches are not stated in the narrative, so
that this double-march cannot be given in
Peary's own words, but as he gives the miles
traveled on the first, second and third marches
as twenty-five, twenty and twenty-five miles
respectively, the intervening distance to 89°
25' must have been twenty-eight miles, so
that the double march covered fifty-three
nautical miles or sixty-one statute miles.
The following day another double march,
covering forty-five miles was made, at the
close of which they were back at 87° 46'49",
the point where Bartlett turned south. This
march was made while a northeast wind of
steadily increasing violence was blowing,
which reminded Peary of the "wild gale” he
had encountered in 1906. In the United
States a “wild gale,” in the winter, when the
earth is covered with snow, would soon set
the snow drifting until the roads are literally
obliterated. This does not seem to have
been the case with Peary, for he appears to
have kept the trail without difficulty for
forty-five miles, braving its violence mean-
while, although he says in “The North Pole,”
on page 178, “When a party in the field is
“overtaken by a storm, they have to stay
“in the snow igloo until the fury is over. If
“there is no igloo near them, they build one
“just as quickly as they can when they see
“the storm approaching, or, if there is not
“time for that, they have to make a dugout
“in a snow bank.” But no such storm could
daunt this little party of explorers, for Peary
says: "Fortunately we were traveling nearly
“before the wind, for it would have been
“impossible to move and follow the trail with
“the gale in our faces. As it was, the dogs
“scudded along before the wind much of the
“time on the gallop.” (North Pole, 306.) And,
strange to say, this "howling gale,” contrary
to the usual custom of wind storms in the
Arctic, had not sent the ice all abroad nor
obliterated the trail as he had feared, so that
a single march south during the next day
(April 10th) covered Bartlett's last northward
march without noteworthy event.
“WE BEGIN TO KILL OUR DOGS’’
Such is the heading appearing on page 286
of Hampton's Magazine for September, which
precedes the following account: “At the end
“of this march I reduced my teams to seven
“dogs each, and had one dog shot, skinned
“and cut up to feed the others. This left me
“thirty-five. I was feeding four teams accord-
“ing to the distance traveled, and the fifth
“team of poorest dogs were now consuming
"each other.” Taking this as an independent
statement, the natural inference is that no
dog had met this tragic fate until after the
close of the march on this 10th day of April,
but attention has already been called to the
killing of dogs on April 4th, when Peary
relates that he “put all the poorer dogs in
"one team and began to kill them and feed
“them to the others.” These two records of
dog killing are sufficiently singular to attract
notice. If Peary killed some of his dogs on
April 4th, then the killing of his dogs was not
“begun” on April 10th, and, conversely, if he
began to kill his dogs on the latter date, there
must be some mistake about killing them on
April 4th. Just how these conflicting state-
ments are to be reconciled, does not seem
entirely clear. If the slaughter began on the
fourth, then on that day Peary began the
reduction of the standard of eight dogs to a
team, instead of delaying that operation
until the tenth. Relating the killing of the
fourth, he uses the plural, and says he killed
“them” by shooting “them,” while on the
tenth he "had one dog shot, skinned and cut
up to feed the others.” If dogs were killed
only at those two points and upon the dates
named, and if he killed but one dog on April
10th, after which his dogs were reduced to
thirty-five, then he must have killed four at
the time of the first recorded killing. But the
details of the two occurences do not agree
in another particular, for on April 4th he put
all the poorest dogs in one team and began
to kill and feed them to other dogs, while on
April 10th he says: “the fifth team of poorest
dogs were now consuming each other.” He
does not explain how it was possible for the
poorer dogs to have satisfied the hunger of the
four other teams and yet have survived suff-
ciently to enable them to consume each other on
and after the 10th of April. In his apparent
effort to embellish a tale, he has sacrificed
accuracy to literary extravagance. With ref-
erence to the killing of dogs after leaving Cape
Columbia, the first mention of such an occur-
rence in the Hampton's narrative appears on
page 177 of the August number; the next
appears on page 286 of September number;
besides which are these: on page 288 he says:
“Another dog played out that day (April 17th)
“and was shot, leaving us with thirty.”
Again on page 291 (On April 23rd) he says:
“After putting four pounds of pemmican into
“each of the twenty-nine faithful dogs to keep
“them quiet, we had at last our chance for
“rest.” So we gather from these excerpts of
the narrative that eleven dogs were killed
after the “dash to the Pole” was begun,
following Bartlett's departure to the south,
at intervals beginning with April 4th and
ending on April 23rd, at Cape Columbia.
Referring to “The North Pole” the first
mention of the killing of a dog may be found
on page 273, where an account is given of the
Eskimos feasting on “boiled dog,” which the
surplus numbers in Bartlett's returning team
had enabled them to have.” This killing
appears to have been to provide for a feast
and not because the dog was "played out.”
The first killing of Peary's own dogs, on
April 4th, as heretofore quoted from Hamp-
ton's, is reported in this language on page 281
of “The North Pole”: “That night I put all
"the poorest dogs in one team and began to
"eliminate and feed them to the others as it
"became necessary.” The reason for the
change in the phraseology is not apparent
unless it may be that the inconsistencies be-
tween the two recorded events in Hampton's
had occurred to the author; but such change
is peculiar, if not significant. No statement
is vouchsafed of the manner of death, and,
instead of its appearing that he “killed them
“by shooting them,” which would seem to
carry out the idea of the killing of two or
more at that time, it now appears that, while
he put the poorest dogs in one team that
night, the "eliminating” process was resorted
to only “when necessary.” Although in
Hampton's narrative no reference is made to
the killing of any dog after April 4th until
April 10th, The North Pole account relates
another killing at the end of the march on
April 5th, the day following the first recorded
incident, in the following terse language;
“At the next camp I had another of the dogs
killed.” When Peary arrived at camp in
the evening of April 10th, after a day's march
in a “howling gale,” in which “the dogs
scudded along before the wind, much of the
time on the gallop,” the tragedy which is so
graphically recorded in Hampton's, has this
modest account in “The North Pole" page
306: “At this spot certain eliminations which
“we were compelled to make among the dogs
“left us a total of thirty-five.” On the 18th
of April during the march “the dogs had
"again become utterly lifeless. Three of
“them had played out entirely. Extra rations
"were fed to them and we made a longer stay
"at this camp, partly on their account,” etc.
(The North Pole, page 310) but no such
account can be found in Hampton's narrative
of this day's march. On the 19th “another
"dog played out that day and was shot,
“leaving me with thirty,’” (The North Pole,
page 312,) which is practically the same
record as in Hampton's September, page 288.
There is, however, in “The North Pole”-no
account of the feeding of four pounds of
pemmican to each of the twenty-nine faithful
dogs which arrived at Cape Columbia, such
as appears in Hampton's. These varying
accounts of the killing of dogs are referred to .
at length for the following reasons:
1. Because, in Hampton's narrative of
events, up to the time Bartlett turned back
at 87°46'49", there is no record of the killing
of a single dog out of the one hundred and
thirty-three that began the northward journey,
while in “The North Pole” only one dog is
reported killed and that one among the
"surplus numbers of Bartlett's returning
team” was slaughtered to provide a “boiled
dog” feast for the Eskimos and not because
of its inability to perform its full duty.
2. Because, although Peary had taken his
pick of all the dogs on April 1st and selected
those who “were as hard as iron,” he began
killing them at the end of the third march,
in which they had “reeled off twenty-five
miles,” “often on the trot and occasionally on
the run;” such killing being without assign-
able cause.
3. Because the report of the killing of dogs
on the 10th of April is seemingly inconsistent
with that of similar occurrences on April 4th
and April 5th.
4. Because of the peculiar reference to
these two occurrences in “The North Pole”
instead of recording these events in the same
manner and substantially verbatim with that
contained in Hampton's, and because in
Hampton's no reference is made to the killing
of another dog on April 5th as recorded in
“The North Pole.”
5. Because the two accounts do not cor-
respond with respect to the diminishing num-
bers in his dog teams after April 10th.
6. Because, if the dogs were killed for the
reason that they were physically unequal to the
task of maintaining the speed which Peary had
planned, that fact, of itself, would have served
to delay the onward progress of the party.
Each day's march was regulated, not by Peary
or the strongest member of the party, but by the
poorest and weakest dog in the pack, while the
frequent reduction of the teams served to throw
additional burdens on those remaining, even
though their loads were also diminishing.
ON THE BACKWARD TRAIL
From this camp at 87°46'49", from whence
Bartlett had turned backward from his farth-
est northward march, the pace which Com-
mander Peary had set for himself at “The
Pole” was maintained to Cape Columbia,
despite such disquieting occurrences as faulted
trails, "almost lifeless dogs,” “Henson and
Eskimos a bit stale,” “opening lead crossed
on an ice ferry,” “ice breaking up in all
directions, under the pressure of the wind,”
crossing seven leads in one march, losing
main trail which necessitated building of at
least one igloo at each camp, dogs playing
out entirely: all of these retarding incidents
seem to have had little effect on his speed,
for in ten marches he reached Cape Columbia,
two hundred and eleven miles distant, at 6
o'clock in the morning of April 23rd. Here
he rested for two days for he says, “We slept
gloriously for practically two days, our brief
waking intervals being occupied exclusively
with eating and drying our clothes.” He then
resumed his journey to the ship, ninety miles
distant, reaching Cape Hecla in one march
of forty-five miles and the “Roosevelt” in
another of equal length. (See The North
Pole, page 317.)
- SUMMARY
To the careful reader of these narratives
of Commander Peary there must appear some
striking contradictions and inconsistencies,
among them being the following:—
That the obstacles encountered during the
first two hundred and eighty miles of the
northward journey could have been so ex-
tremely difficult as to make their average
daily march less than twelve miles and yet
the very next day after the last white man
had turned south there should be a remarka-
ble improvement in the character of the
going, increasing daily, so that, even while
pioneering his own way and building his own
igloos, Peary was able to more than double
the average march when preceded by his relay
parties who were worked to the limit.
That during the southern part of the
march there were numerous instances of
“smashed” or broken sledges, or delays for
the purpose of repairing them, while with the
single exception of repairing sledges while at
the Pole, there is no mention of any mishap
to sledges or delay caused thereby, during all
the whirlwind rush from 87° 46' 49' to the
Pole and return over the same region and the
same trail which had brought such disaster in
the upward journey.
That out of a total of one hundred and
thirty-three, no dog had succumbed to the
heart-breaking work and the hardships of the
two hundred and eighty-mile journey prior to
the return of Bartlett, and yet after having
had a complete day of rest, Peary's forty
picked dogs begin to undergo "elimination”
at the close of the third march and five appear
to have been killed in six days, notwithstand-
ing their thirty hours rest at the Pole, and
their marches having been over “the best
going since leaving land.”
That during the time Peary was accom-
panied by his "relay parties” he had been
delayed for days at a time by "open leads”
and yet, from the time they left him, on his
journey to the Pole and back again to land
no lead had delayed him more than two
hours, although he traversed on his return
the same regions where he had suffered serious
delays on his upward route and under prac-
tically the same conditions with respect to
tide effects.
That he experienced so much difficulty and
so much exhausting labor in making progress
during the first four of the last five marches
of Bartlett's last pioneering as to call for
especial notice and comment, and yet that
he could have returned over the same trail
and covered those four marches in two
double-marches with so little effort as to
occasion no other comment than, "This day
we made a double-march. The next day we
also made a double-march.” *
That so much importance should be placed
upon his "system” of “relay parties” by Com-
mander Peary whereby each party was to
"pioneer” for five marches and then return
to land, and yet in actual practice the "sys-
tem’ should be so generally disregarded as to
throw fully three-fourths of the pioneer work
on Captain Bartlett's party alone.
That Captain Bartlett was, second to Com-
mander Peary himself, the most capable and
cient man in the entire expedition and the
best fitted by experience, training and educa-
tion to act as second in command of this
desperate enterprise, and yet, that Henson,
Peary's colored servant, should be given that
position, notwithstanding he was admittedly
"not so competent as the white members of
the expedition in getting himself and his
party back to land,” “not having, as a racial
inheritance, the daring and initiative of
Bartlett, Marvin, McMillan or Borup.” (The
North Pole, 272.) This selection of Henson,
under the circumstances and for the reasons
assigned by Peary, seems incomprehensible.
OTHER CONTRADICTORY
X. STATEMENTS
Crossing of the 84th Parallel
Concerning the distance covered during his
northward progress, Commander Peary says,
on page 7 of “The North Pole,” “The 84th
parallel was crossed on March 18th,” while on
page 232 of this same narrative, in recording
the events of his fifth consecutive march, on
March 11th, he distinctly states, “On this
march we crossed the 84th parallel.” More-
over, he reports Dr. Goodsell as turning south-
ward on March 14th, adding, “The latitude
where the doctor turned back was 84° 29'.”
(The North Pole, 235.) On the following day
McMillan turned back from this same camp.
Thus it appears from the later portions of
these recorded events that the crossing of the
84th parallel occurred one whole week before
the time named on page 7, and that the end of
the seventh northward march saw the party
29 minutes north of that parallel, being five
days before the date first named.
Another strange omission in Peary's record
of events is that on the day named on page 7
as that upon which the 84th parallel was
crossed—to wit, March 18th—there is a
hiatus in his later narrative of daily events,
in which he actually loses two whole days,
being the 18th and 19th of March. The
tenth northward march was concluded on
the 17th of March. (The North Pole, 240 et
seq.) Yet in the following paragraph he says,
“At the end of this march, on the evening of
the 19th.”—etc. Nowhere else in this narra-
tive is there any reference to the events of the
18th and 19th of March other than that re-
ferred to on page 7, fixing the crossing of the
84th parallel on the 18th.
Return of Dr. Goodsell and McMillan
Peary reports Dr. Goodsell as having
turned back from latitude 84° 29' for the
ship on March 14th and McMillan as having
followed on the next day. The distance to the
Roosevelt was about 196 statute miles, and
this was covered in eleven days, for Peary
reports them as having arrived at the ship
on March 25th. (Hampton's, September
293.) He records this event on page 325 of
‘'The North Pole” as follows: “I learned that
McMillan and the doctor had reached the
ship March 21.”
Distance Between Cape Sheridan
and Cape Columbia
There would seem to be no possibility of
mistake as to the distance between these two
points since they both had figured in his ex-
pedition of 1906, and the trail between them
had been repeatedly traversed by members
of his last expedition, both before and after
his return from his northward journey. Yet
even this distance is left in doubt by his
varying statements, as follows:
‘‘Between the winter quarters of the Roose-
velt at Cape Sheridan, and Cape Columbia,
“the most northerly point on the north coast of
“Grant Land, which I had chosen as the point
“of departure for the ice journey, lay ninety
"miles in a northwesterly direction along the
“ice foot and across the land.” (The North
Pole, 193.)
After two days of rest at Cape Columbia on
his return from his "dash to the Pole” he con-
tinued on to the ship, as thus related: “We
reached Cape Hecla in one march of forty-
five miles and the Roosevelt in another of
equal length.” (The North Pole, 317.) The
Hampton narrative describes this occurrence
as follows: “Two forced marches of forty-
“five miles each, one to Cape Hecla, the next
“along the ice-foot and across the points of the
“land to the ship, brought us to the Roosevelt.”
But on page 294 of the September number
of Hampton's and on page 326 of The North
Pole, Peary describes a monument which was
erected at Cape Columbia to “mark the point
of departure and return of the sledge expedi-
tion of the Peary Arctic Club,” bearing an
inscription, the concluding paragraph of
which, immediately over the signature of ‘ ‘R.
E. Peary, U. S. N.” reads as follows: “The
Club's steamer Roosevelt wintered at C.
Sheridan, 73 miles east of here.”
No comment seems necessary with respect
to these singular discrepancies in his two nar-
ratives and even more singular ones in the
earlier and later portions of ‘ ‘The North
Pole” itself, although the natural inquiry
arises—what credence can be placed in a
chronicle of events which is so manifestly
inaccurate in its various parts? If two dates
are fixed for the crossing of the 84th parallel,
one week apart, when it is certain that only
one date can be correct; if two dates are given
for the arrival of Goodsell and McMillan at
the ship, with a difference of four days, and
involving an average daily mileage discrep-
ancy of 10 nautical miles; if the distance be-
tween Cape Sheridan and Cape Columbia is
variously stated as 73 and 90 nautical miles
over a well defined and familar road; what re-
liance can be placed upon the record of other
events involving time, distance and observa-
tions for latitude, the accuracy of which is
vital in establishing beyond question the
validity of Commander Peary's claim to the
discovery of the North Pole? ; , , ,
ſ t
COMPARISON OF MILEAGE coverED
*… BY EACH “PARTY” *
The most surprising part of the whole
record, however, is in the record of the dis-
tances covered by Commander Peary him-
self, when contrasted with that of his relay
parties. In making these comparisons, both
geographical and statute miles are given, in
order that the actual distance traveled may
be more readily understood by the general
reader, who is more familiar with the latter
measurement of distance. The arrival at
the Roosevelt of the several return parties is
given as follows: Goodsell and McMillan,
March 25; Borup, April 11; Marvin's Eskimos,
April 17; Bartlett, April 24; Peary April 27;
(September Hampton's, 293.) “The North
Pole," page 325, states that "McMillán and
the doctor had reached the ship March 21.”
SO two computations are required to conform
to these conflicting statements, although for
the purpose of the following tabulation the
date of March 25th has been accepted. From
Cape Columbia to the ship was ninety nautical
miles, so this distance is added in each CaSe
to the distance farthest north from Cape
Columbia which each party had made.
Total Nautical Statute
Miles Miles
Goodsell and McMillan. . . . . . | 70 195.8
Borup. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .226 260.2
Marvin's Eskimos. . . . . . . . . . .301 346.6
Bartlett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .370 426
Peary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .672 773.8
DAILY AVERAGE MARCH
No. of Nautical Statute
Marches Miles Miles
Goodsell&McMillan ll 15.5 | 7.8
Borup. . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 10 | 1.8
Marvin's Eskimos . . 22 13.7 15.8
Bartlett . . . . . . . . . . . 24 15.4 17.7
Peary. . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 29.1 33.6
The average march of the four relay parties
(assuming that Goodsell and McMillan
reached the ship on March 25th) was fifteen
and one-half statute miles, while that of
Commander Peary was thirty-three and six-
tenths miles. Some of Peary's marches would
have been remarkable evidences of physical
endurance if performed over fair country
roads, but when made under the circumstances
depicted by him, they seem little less than
incredible. Attention has already been called
to his remarkable performance at the Pole
and on the first march south, in which he
had not only done the many things he records,
but also had traveled seventy-eight statute
miles without sleep and with little rest in
thirty-four hours. The next two marches
covered a distance of one hundred and twelve
and one-half statute miles, so that in three
days' time he had covered a distance of one
hundred and ninety statute miles and averaging
over sixty-three miles per day. This means
that he must have traveled an average of over two
miles and six-tenths for every hour of elapsed
time from 6 P. M. of April 6th until he
arrived at 87° 46' 49' on the evening of April
9th. Allowing only six hours per day for
meals, rest and sleep and his hourly average
would be over three and a half miles. The
entire journey from the Pole to land, covering
four hundred and thirteen geographical or four
hundred and seventy-five statute miles, was
made at an average speed of twenty-nine and
three-quarters miles per march, and the
distance from Cape Columbia to the ship
in two “forced marches” of fifty-two statute
miles each. Moreover, the distance thus
covered is reckoned upon an absolutely straight
line, without any additional mileage for
deviations or meandering from a direct course
to overcome “formidable obstacles” of pres-
sure ridges, open leads and "ragged and
mountainous ice,” which he so graphically
described.
To many readers the most astounding part
of these two narratives will probably be the
statement that Peary reached the Roosevelt
on April 27th, only three days after Bartlett.
The significance of this statement becomes
apparent when it is recalled that, while
Bartlett turned south from his “farthest
north” at 87° 46'49" on April 1st, Peary did
not start on his “dash to the Pole” until the
following day, and that he also rested two
days at Cape Columbia on his return before
continuing on to the ship; so that without
these three days of delay HE W 0 UL D
HAVE OVER-TAKEN BAR T L E TT AT
TAPE COLUMBIA, NINETY MILES FROM
, HE ROOSEVELT. Yet during the time
which had elapsed from their parting at 87°
46' 49", the one going south and the other
north, until they again met at the ship,
Bartlett had traveled three hundred and
seventy nautical, or four hundred and twenty-
six statute miles, while Peary had not only
consumed thirty hours at the Pole, in addi.
tion to the three days devoted to rest, but
had traveled six hundred and seventy-two
nautical, or seven hundred and seventy-four
statute miles, being three hundred and forty-
eight statute miles more than traversed by
Bartlett. Even Commander Peary, himself,'
concedes that this is “extraordinary speed”
and seeks to explain, on page 7 of "The North
Pole,” how it was possible for him to accom-
plish what may seem to the readerºphysically
impossible. a *
The foregoing careful analysis of Com-
mander Peary's two narratives will, the
writer believes, serve to emphasize the dis-
crepancies and inconsistencies which pervade
them. It was natural to expect that "The
North Pole”—apparently written, later than
the Hampton's narrative—would correct any
errors or seeming contradictions of the earlier
record, but that was not done. It is extremely
unfortunate for Commander. Peary's own
reputation, that, his own accounts of his
"dash for the Pole", are not more accurate
and convincing... Every American citizen who
rejoices in the glory of his own country, would
be glad to know that Peary had reached the
North Pole, but there are some, at least, who
cannot accept the Commander's unconfirmed
testimony, filled as it is with contradictions
as conclusively establishing his claim.
*
i
|
:
||||||||
2013 77
THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
DATE DUE
DEC iſ gº








sº
****, *
# **** *.
*g
$4
*
::#ff8;
**$%$&{;
$ $£§§§
???
¿
± *
: （.） 。·：
}}ſae• § :·.ș#####
Ģ;-~ -
#،¿ķī£######
3→ **= *
→§§§§ë•••• és * &ſ.§:::::::：E:ș și
****· …*-· -
§§
§§§§
ᤤ
§§§
§§
&#
、
4