Greymouth Evening Star. AND BRUNNERTON ADVOCATE. WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 4th., 1929 ANTARCTIC AMENITIES

Greymouth Evening Star, 4 December 1929, Page 6

Greymouth Evening Star. AND BRUNNERTON ADVOCATE. WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 4th., 1929 ANTARCTIC AMENITIES

T HE world’s heroes have their human weaknesses, and it is not surprising that Commander Byrd’s flight to the South Pole has aroused adverse comment from some other explorers, who may not be free from jealousy, and almost pardonable resentment, that Byrd did with ease and speed what they had to strive for under great difficulties, endured for a prolonged period. It has been recalled that Amundsen with. four men and many dogs took 56 days to reach the South Pole and 39 days to return. Scott was 79 days getting to the Pole and was 139 out and back to the point where he died. Byrd and his four men went to the Pole and back in less than 24 hours in the sheltered comfort of their fast aeroplane, and by radio were able to report progress as they flew, and give the complete story to the expectant world within a day of their return to the base. Earlier adventurers in their fight with Nature, were comparatively unaided, whereas, to-day, scientific research enables explorers to evade many of the one-time hardships and perils. None the less, it would be stupid to attempt to belittle Byrd’s accomplishments. To-day, is published a criticism by a Norwegian officer, who has had Antarctic experience, but never got so far as the Pole. He casts doubt on Byrd’s description of unknown mountains, and hints that his story has been greatly embellished in order to tickle the public palate with' sensations Byrd, himself, pre-answered such criticism, by declaring that airmen are able to see far beyond what is possible to those confined to the ground. This is obviously true, and applies to all parts of the world, and not only to the Antarctic, where moreover, the old-time explorers were far too occupied in trudging slowJy over the ice to pay much attention to distant territory. Cloud effects, quitely likely, would prevent them observing what was clear to Byrd and his companions. Any idea that Byrd has deceived the world can be dismissed as absurd. He cannot be justly blamed for the “gush” attached to many of the reports supplied from Little America, since the base was instituted.

The Norwegian is on safer ground when he opposes American claims to Antarctic sovereignty, based on the Byrd Expedition’s work. Both Britain and Norway have stronger rights, especially Britain. The present explorers owe a tremendous deal to their predecessors, who, indeed, made possible Byrd’s progress. Without the information given by Amundsen, Scott, Shackleton and others, it would not have been possible for the Byrd Expedition to start where it aid.

If it had been thought that the venture would be used to support U.S.A claims to Antarctic territory, other nations would not have co-operated to make the expedition a success. Britain has already made it clear that she will not accept the U.S.A.’s press claims, and although the American Government is evading the issue, it is unlikely that serious friction will arise in future. There may be great mineral wealth in the Antarctic, but how is it to be extracted? There would always be great difficulty in obtaining enough labour and the wages demanded would not be the rate current in more habitable regions. The cost of transport and the general uncertainty of circumstances generally would be other factors to consider, and although scientific research may solve some

of these problems; it is probable ‘that the occupancy of the Antarctic will never be more than nominal. The area is not worth an international quarrel, and the wisest plan would be to agree straight away that it should be neutral territory, free to all nations, as it has been for centuries. An Antarctic “rush” is unlikely.