200 THE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN COOK AND PEARY 



silence his critics he would finish and forward his proofs to Copen- 

 hagen without further delay and withdraw to the seclusion of a 

 hotel near New York. Three months had elapsed since his return 

 from the frozen north when his secretary sailed for Copenhagen 

 with a box containing the precious documents which were to estab- 

 lish the explorer's credit before the world. 



Then, while the messenger was still on the ocean, affidavits 

 were published on December 9, signed by two men who swore that 

 they had helped "fix" Dr. Cook's records to pass muster at Copen- 

 hagen; that they had supplied him with calculated observations, 

 and further, that he did not seem capable of making accurate cal- 

 culations of his exact positions when alone on the Polar ice pack. 

 These men were Captain A. W. Loose, a navigator of experience, 

 and George H. Dunkle, an insurance broker. Their accusations 

 caused a sensation, but proved nothing definite, and apparently 

 had small influence on the final verdict. 



It was the committee appointed by the University of Copen- 

 hagen to pass upon Dr. Cook's evidence which gave the quietus to 

 his honorable fame, and branded him as an impostor. This com- 

 mittee, which included the highest experts in the realm, made a 

 report to the Consistory of the University which was given to the 

 public December 21, accompanied by the following brief formal 

 statement : 



"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 expe- 

 dition." 



The report of the committee, as presented to the Consistory, 

 state that Cook's papers were without any value; that his report to 

 the University was practically the same as that published in the 

 New York Herald upon his return from his Arctic expedition. The 

 copies of his notebooks submitted, said the committee, contained 

 no original observations, but only results thereof. Accordingly, 



