The Copenhagen Verdict Rejecting Dr. Cook's Claims.
The Outlook quoted the same as follows:
The committee's final verdict and the verdict of the university consistory is expressed formally in the finding of the latter: “The documents handed the university for examination do not contain observations and information which can be regarded as proof that' Dr. Cook reached the North Pole on his recent expedition.”

The editorial mentioned also quoted individual expressions of opinion thus:
Officers of the university in their individual expressions of feeling go even further. Thus, Dr. Stromgren, director of the Astronomical Observatory, at Copenhagen. and chairman of the committee on the Cook claims, is quoted as calling Cook's actions shameless, as admitting with sorrow and indignation that the university had been hoaxed, and as saying that “it was an offense to submit such papers to scientific men."
 

“it was an offense to submit such papers to scientific men." “When I saw the observations, I realized that it was a scandal. The documents which Dr. Cook sent to the university are most impudent. It is the most childish sort of attempt at cheating. "It is now possible to discuss Dr. Cook in plain language. The rejection of his “records” as worthless by the University of Copenhagen ends forever his claim to having discovered the North Pole. He stands today exposed as the chief imposter of the age. * * *

Rasmussen, a noted Arctic explorer who has favored Dr. Cook's claim, was called in as an expert by the university's committee; he is reported as saying:
“When I saw the observations, I realized that it was a scandal. The documents which Dr. Cook sent to the university are most impudent. It is the most childish sort of attempt at cheating."
It will be remembered that Rasmussen was the Danish explorer whom Cook declared, when he believed Rasmussen was in favor of his claims, was better qualified than any other explorer to pass upon the question then at issue.

The Outlook summed the matter up as follows:
The fundamental justification of the distrust which has been felt all along in this country by many scientific observers and students of the laws of evidence has been that, to put it squarely, Dr. Cook has not acted as would have acted a man of honor whose claims had been disputed and who knew that they were just. Dr. Cook, on the contrary, has carried on a long series of evasions and delays, and has apparently put his main efforts into making money by lectures, and through publication. In this way he gained, some say $30,000, some say $100,000. Finally, when patience was all but exhausted, he presented to a foreign court of inquiry a lame and even ridiculous case.

The mere fact that he did not offer to appear in person before the court he had himself selected, in order that he might answer inquiries, is most significant.

Dr. Cook's False Claims of Support by Polar Experts.
On the cover of Dr. Cook's book as now being sold in New York are printed the names of a number of Arctic explorers and of others whom it is alleged support him. Among them are Roald Amundsen, the discoverer of the South Pole; our own Gen. Greely, who in one of his Arctic expeditions broke the record then existing of the farthest north, taking it away from England after it had been held by that country for nearly 300 years; and Capt. E. B. Baldwin, of the Baldwin-Ziegler polar expedition of 1901. While It is true that these men, as well as many others, before Dr. Cook's methods were understood, credited him with veracity, it Is the height of charlatanary now to name them as supporters, and the same remark, no doubt, applies to every other Arctic explorer familiar with the facts of the case whom Cook claims as a supporter.

Amundsen Repudiates Dr. Cook.
As to the position of Amundsen, the discoverer of the South Pole, I quote as follows from the report of an interview with him in the Detroit News:
Capt. Amundsen, himself unsuccessful in a search for the North Pole generously joined in the acclaim that at first hailed Dr. Cook as the discoverer, and remained firmly convinced that Cook was telling the truth until he (Amundsen) was given an opportunity to examine the data and observations that Dr. Cook laid before the University of Copenhagen.
“There was absolutely nothing in these alleged observations of Dr. Cook,” said Capt. Amundsen. “It was all fake and could have deceived nobody. Thus, in sorrow, was I forced to the conclusion that my old comrade was lying.”

General Greely Repudiates Dr. Cook.
General Greely, on October 14, 1913, sent out the following letter for publication:
To the editor of the New York Times:
Returning from Europe after 10 months' absence, my attention has been drawn to a recent editorial article, in the Times stating that I am quoted by Dr. Cook as indorsing his claim to have reached the Pole. When the North Polar discussion was at its height I published in the fifth edition of my Handbook of Polar Discoveries, under date of Florence, Italy, January, 1910, the following opinion:
“The claims of Dr. Cook of reaching the North Pole have been thoroughly discredited by his failure to furnish to the University of Copenhagen his promised proofs of such journey."
That opinion has never been modified.
A. W. GREELY.
WASHINGTON, D. C.

And Gen. Greely, at page 269 of his book, “Handbook of Polar Discoveries” asserts:

The marvelous and detailed claims of Dr. F. A. Cook, regarding his alleged attainment of the North Pole in 1908, are now generally and thoroughly discredited.

And at page 265 of the same work Gen. Greely declares:
R. E. Peary, the discoverer of the deep sea at the pole, who has won deserved fame by his attainment of the North Geographic Pole prior to its being reached by any other explorer—to the ability, endurance, and persistency of R. E. Peary the world owes the discovery of the pole.

Capt. Baldwin Repudiates Dr. Cook.
Capt. Baldwin publicly repudiated Dr. Cook in December, 1913, as was extensively reported in the papers of that period. I quote from a clipping upon the point as follows:
Baldwin had refused to desert Cook in the early stages of the controversy, which followed the return of Peary from the pole, and was widely advertised by Dr. Cook as an indorser of his claims. In a letter printed in the “Cook book” Capt. Baldwin sought to defend the pretender from the charge of falsifying documents, refusing to accept the declarations of others to that effect. Now he is convinced to the contrary, since his own statements have been so amplified and altered by Cook that he has felt impelled to make public refutation of them. Even his letter that appeared in the “Cook book” was “cooked,” and for two years Baldwin has been protesting against the further use of his name. * * *

When Baldwin was asked how he had come to stay so long in the Cook camp he said it was hard to believe the claimant had deliberately deceived, but after a careful study of documentary evidence he had become convinced that Dr. Cook “never was anywhere near the top of Mount McKinley and never got within hundreds of miles of the North Pole.” Baldwin states that he has reached the end of his years of defense of Cook, which continued “until I learned for myself the manner in which he plays the charlatan with documents and letters.”

It is needless to pursue this phase further. The matter was well but briefly summed up by the Washington Star some years ago in these words:

Dr. Cook has deliberately entered upon a campaign of justification, not for the sake of making the world believe him regardless of reward, but for the sake of dollars and cents to be won. He has organized his fraud and capitalized his deceit.
* * * The most deplorable feature of the matter at the present time is that it is possible for a self-convicted claimant to the highest honors in the scientific world to continue to reap a profit from the credulity and the partisanship of those who refuse to accept official verdicts.

The Chicago Inter-Ocean, at the time of the Copenhagen verdict, touched upon the situation as follows:
It is now possible to discuss Dr. Cook in plain language. The rejection of his “records” as worthless by the University of Copenhagen ends forever his claim to having discovered the North Pole. He stands today exposed as the chief imposter of the age. * * *
The single-handed achievement of which Dr. Cook pretended to be the hero had about it a glamor that won him friends by the thousand. Peary's forthright utterance when, fresh from the north, he declared Dr. Cook had not been out of sight of land and had given the world “a gold brick,” won Dr. Cook more friends. These friends have remained loyal through thick and thin. But it would now seem impossible for any but the most stubborn sentimentalist to preserve faith.
Many, no doubt, will cling to the belief that Dr. Cook at least was honest and believed he had discovered the pole. It seems almost heartless to shatter this last forlorn hope of loyalty. It will be remembered that Dr. Cook's two Eskimo companions asserted to Peary that Dr. Cook had turned south from Cape Thomas Hubbard. If Dr. Cook traveled south it is impossible he thought he was going north.

Nothing is left but to believe that Dr. Cook attempted to deceive the world with malice aforethought and in cold blood that he might win fame and fortune. There are no extenuating circumstances. Even common honesty must he denied him.
As a last resort, Dr. Cook. through his secretary, sent a letter to the university committee saying judgment should be suspended until his instruments and original data could he brought from Etah. * * *
Good men everywhere must regret there is no law among, the nations to punish this atrocious crime. For such an act of infamy the thumbs of the world turn down.

The New York Nation at the same time strongly brought out a point which every true-hearted American should take to heart:
In foisting this fraud upon the world Cook was guilty of much more than an injury to the man whose laurels he was falsely claiming. It has been a great loss to all the world that one of those rare events in which mankind spontaneously finds occasion for triumph and rejoicing was converted into a time of noxious wrangling.

As for Peary himself, he has been defrauded of something which can never be restored to him. The enthusiasm which in the first instance would have hailed the accomplishment of a feat that heroic venturers for three generations had strenuously sought to compass can never be resuscitated out of the possibilities of the past. Such is the temper of man.

False as it has been proved, the claim of the cheap swindler has dimmed the luster of the true discoverer's achievement. He will receive the full acknowledgment, that his work merits, in the form of recognition from scientific and other bodies and of a sure place in
History, but the joy of the acclaim that should have greeted him at the triumphant close of his 23 years, quest can never be his.

And one more word of regret is in order. The denunciations of Cook's story telegraphed by Peary from the far North were made the occasion of criticisms which are now shown to have been unjust. That Cook was an outright imposter, without the slightest title to consideration was doubtless as well known to Peary from the beginning as it is to us all now.

Repudiation of Dr. Cook by American Organizations of Experts.
Although the University of Copenhagen found that Dr. Cook had utterly failed to establish his claim, it will be remembered that be was discredited by and expelled from membership in America's leading organizations made up of explorers, those most familiar with the problems involved in his claims. Among those whose action was published to the world may be mentioned:
The Explorers' Club.
The Alpine Club.
The Arctic Club of America, and so forth.

The latter organization, composed of American Arctic explorers, who had crossed the Arctic Circle, expelled him while Admiral Schley was its president. Would not a man of a keen sense of honor, if he had a righteous claim and really believed it should be investigated, instead of maintaining a lobby in Washington and besieging Congress, present his facts to the organizations of experts in exploration, which had expelled him, and ask them to reinstate him?
Until he has at least submitted his case to them, it is suggested that he has not purged himself or even attempted to purge himself of the odium which attaches to his name, fame, and cause, which fact alone ought to be conclusive that he has no proper standing upon which to appeal to the Congress of the United States to take time and money to investigate his claims.

Dr. Cook's Expulsion From Membership in the Arctic Club of America.
The printed bulletin issued by the Arctic Club of America, which is a different organization than the Peary Arctic Club and composed of explorers who have crossed the Arctic Circle, shows that at the annual meeting of the club, held December 22, 1909, officers were elected, including Admiral Schley as president, 75 members voting. This bulletin also says:
After the election of officers the following resolution was adopted after rather a lengthy discussion:

“Resolved, That the further membership of Dr. Frederick A. Cook in the Arctic Club of America be referred to the board of directors just elected, with full power to act.”
The same bulletin further shows:
“The first meeting of the board of directors for 1910 was held on the evening of January 5, 1910. The following resolution was unanimously adopted:
“Whereas the claims of Dr. Frederick A. Cook of having discovered the North Pole have been
rejected by the University of Copenhagen and other scientific bodies; and
“Whereas Dr. Frederick A. Cook keeps in hiding instead of facing his accusers; and
“Whereas Dr. Frederick A. Cook has failed to communicate with the Arctic Club of America, whose members have so steadily proved his friends in the past: Therefore be it
“Resolved, That we consider the further membership of Dr. Frederick A. Cook in the Arctic Club of America as not to its interests, and that the name of Dr. Frederick A. Cook be dropped from the roll of members forthwith.”

NEXT PAGE
 

17 page document: Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4 | Page 5