Dr. Cook’s Secret.

New Zealand Graphic, Volume XLIII, Issue 16, 20 October 1909, Page 7

Dr. Cook’s Secret.

HOW HIS PERSONALITY COMPELLED BELIEF. AMAZING NERVE. (From Our Special Correspondent.) LONDON, September 10. “I must now say that this man, Frederick Cook, is the most remarkable, the most amazing man I have ever met.” These words from a special correspondent who disbelieved Cook’s story from the outset, and who discredited it in all the dispatches that he wrote to his paper, the “Daily Chronicle,” will show what a striking personality Copenhagen liad to deal with.* They will help to explain how Dr. Cook was able to convince not only the King and the public of Denmark, but most of its distinguished scientists and explorers as well. “He calls me his enemy,” continues the “Chronicle” correspondent, “but I have no personal animosity against him. and I will say honestly and warmly that I am filled with a sense of profound admiration for him. “If he is an impostor, he is also a very brave man —a man with such an iron nerve, with such a magnificent courage in playing his game, that he will count for ever among the greatest impostors of the world. Tliat, and not the discovery of the North Pole, shall be his claim to immortality. “For here was this man, doubted by all who had acclaimed him a hero, with his story strongly discounted by Peary, pursued by circumstantial evidence, and threatened within twenty-four hours by the almost certain possibility of final exposure—and yet he faced the world, defied criticism, and smiled and smiled, again. “I was in the same room with him for two hours to-day, a drawing-room into which came a stream of distinguished people, full of suspicion about him; but ceremoniously polite he stood among

them, shaking hands, bowing and smiling. “He was haggard, and there were deep lines upon his face, but his hand was perfectly steady as he took a cup of tea, and still he smiled.” CHARGED WITH IMPOSTURE. The newspaper which eleven years ago exposed the pretensions of Louis de Rougemont after he had lieen received with open arms by the British Association has from the first declined to accept the story of Dr. Cook’s conquest of the Pole. To-day the “Daily Chronicle” denounces Cook as an impostor in very plain language, thus:— “We now charge Dr. Cook with having fabricated all the statements of any significance with which he has supported his claim to have reached the North Pole. We charge him witn attempting an imposture upon the world, and with the knowledge that he could not long sustain the pretence. In doing this—and it is not the least item of his discredit—he has betrayed the trust of a generous people and outraged their hospitality. “The profound sympathy of all rightthinking peopl? will be expressed towards the King of Denmark and his subjects that unkind circumstances should have brought this man to their friendly shores. “Looking back upon this extraordin ary career, not yet a week old, and now ended, the main cause for wonder is that it lasted so long. Here was a man, with no credentials except his unsupported word, whose reputation as an explorer, moreover, was not calculated to inspire confidence, who yet was able for the space of several days to delude a large proportion of mankind in all parts of the world that he was all he pretended to be. Yet at the outset he came in contact with scientists and explorers and geographers who might reasonably have been expected to put their fingers upon any weak points in his case.” A strange psychological problem is suggested by the fact that Dr. Cook’s claims were accepted—even by men accustomed to analyse and dissect evidence —entirely on trust. That Dr. Cook is equipped with a most plausible manner is evident from the fact that he convinced a body of hardened journalists, collected from almost every capital of Europe, of his bona-fides. Of all the assembled scribes only one—the special correspondent of the “Daily Chronicle”— was sceptical as to the virtue of his pretensions. Most of the journalists became at once not only partisans, but enthusiastic partisans, of the Polar hero. MAN OF MYSTERY. The battle of faith versus doubt has raged furiously this week round the personality of Dr. Cook, claimant of the honour of first discovering the North Pole. It is a remarkable thing that, in spite of his silence upon essential points, and in spite of contradictory statements, he has steadily won over many people who at first were doubtful of his claim. Yet they ean give no reasons for their belief now beyond the impression of his person, ality. “ That personality,” says the Chronicle’s” special correspondent at Copenhagen, “is so strange and so powerful that I believe if Dr. Cook claimed to have come from Mars there are many people who would say ‘We believe him because he tells us so. Sueh a simple honest man would not deceive us.’ Dr. Cook has so far produced no more evidence of his journey to the North Pole than he could show in reference to Mars. I do not say that he will not produce it, hut he has not done so yet.” On hearing that Professor Stromgren, head of the Copenhagen Astronomical Observatory, had studied Dr. Cook’s diary and records, and declared himself “perfectly satisfied that there was no room for doubt as to their genuineness, the “ Chronicle- ” correspondent sought an interview with the Professor. The dialogue between them is reported by the Pressman thus:— “ Professor,” I said, “ 1 understand you have seen Dr. Cook’s manuscripts?” “What manuscripts?” said the professor, looking surprised. “ Hls diary,” I said. “ His diary I have not seen.” “ But, surely,” I said, “ did you not examine hie observations?” “No,” said the professor, “1 have seen no observations. He showed me only a paper on which he had written the results of his journey.”

• SCIENTIFICALLY VALUELESS.” “Were they scientifically accurate?* I said. “ They were scientifically valueless,* said the professor. “ They were not observations at all; they were merely statements; they could prove neither one thing nor the other. Until we can sea his original observations we ean prove nothing at all.” I was astounded, but, if it were possible, I was still more staggered when Professor Stromgren made use of the following words: — “It is impossible,” he said, “to examine any observations made by Dr. Cook. There are no original observations in Copenhagen. Dr. Cook told me himself that he had sent them all to America from Greenland. He has nothing with him here, he says, but his results.” I asked Professor Stromgren to repeat these serious words, so as to admit of no doubt. He repeated them slowly, deliberately and gravely-. “ Then,” I said, “ there is no diary here ?” “ No,” said the Professor, “there is no diary in Copenhagen.” “ And therefore,” I said, “no proof wha-tever that Dr. Cook’s story is true?” “ That is so,” said Professor Stromgren. The Pressman then went to see Mr. Sverdrup, the Norwegian explorer. Perhaps he had seen some kind of proof. “ Have you seen any diary, papers or observations made by Dr. Cook?” “No,” replied Sverdrup, “1 have not.” A search through Copenhagen failed to discover anyone who has seen sueh observations. The King of Denmark has seen nothing neither has the Crown Prince, nor Prince Hans, the uncle of many Kings, whom Dr. Cook visited to-day in the presence of Mr. Stead; nor has Dr. Egan, the American Minister, nor has any living soul among those who have acclaimed this man to be the heroic discoverer of the North Pole. They have all accepted his simple story without a particle of proof.