Copy of a letter from Vilhjalmur Stefansson to Joseph-Fidèle Bernard, 10 April 1924
Date10 April, 1924
abstractCorrespondence, newspaper articles, and other material related to the ill-fated 1921 expedition to Wrangel Island.
RepositoryRauner Special Collections Library, Dartmouth College.
Call NumberStefansson Mss-91: Harold Noice Papers, Box 1, Folder 2
Access and Usage Rights Copyright © 2022 Trustees of Dartmouth College. Publicly accessible for non-commercial use: these pages may be freely searched and displayed, but permission must be received for subsequent distribution in print or electronically. Please see http://www.dartmouth.edu/~library/schcomm/copyright/rights.html for more information.
COPY.
In care of
BROADWAY AT 156th STREET
April 10, 1924.
Dear Captain Bernard:
I received your letter of April 5th only an hour
after I had mailed you a long letter which I would not have sent had
I known what you were going to write. I always believe in trying to
prevent misunderstandings and quarrels, but I do not believe in begg
ing very hard if anyone seems determined to make trouble. My feeling
then is to tell them to go ahead and do the most they can as soon as
possible.
after I had mailed you a long letter which I would not have sent had
I known what you were going to write. I always believe in trying to
prevent misunderstandings and quarrels, but I do not believe in begg
ing very hard if anyone seems determined to make trouble. My feeling
then is to tell them to go ahead and do the most they can as soon as
possible.
I hope you understand by now that what you are
angry with me about was only my attempt to defend you. I have had no
doubt and I have no doubt now that you did your best to reach Wrangell
Island in 1922. But when Mr. Noice said to Mr. Knight, Lorne Knight's
father, that you had not done so, I came to your defense for two reas
ons. I believed you to be innocent of the charge and I also knew the
pain it would cause Mr. Knight to be under the impression that you
might have reached Wrangell Island had you wanted to. It was in that
connection I issued a statement saying that your qualifications for the
voyage to Wrangell Island were second to none and that the late date at
which you sailed was no fault of yours but was due to the trouble I had
had in financing. If you now for the purpose of trying to get me in
bad decide to claim that you could have reached Wrangell Island had you
tried harder, you will find yourself in contradiction with the state
ments you made last year, you will be unable to convince people you then
talked with that your present position is right, and the one you took
last year was wrong, and you will be in every way the loser. You will
be causing pain to the relatives of the boys, you will be heaping dis
credit upon yourself, and all you will gain will be a little annoyance
to me.
angry with me about was only my attempt to defend you. I have had no
doubt and I have no doubt now that you did your best to reach Wrangell
Island in 1922. But when Mr. Noice said to Mr. Knight, Lorne Knight's
father, that you had not done so, I came to your defense for two reas
ons. I believed you to be innocent of the charge and I also knew the
pain it would cause Mr. Knight to be under the impression that you
might have reached Wrangell Island had you wanted to. It was in that
connection I issued a statement saying that your qualifications for the
voyage to Wrangell Island were second to none and that the late date at
which you sailed was no fault of yours but was due to the trouble I had
had in financing. If you now for the purpose of trying to get me in
bad decide to claim that you could have reached Wrangell Island had you
tried harder, you will find yourself in contradiction with the state
ments you made last year, you will be unable to convince people you then
talked with that your present position is right, and the one you took
last year was wrong, and you will be in every way the loser. You will
be causing pain to the relatives of the boys, you will be heaping dis
credit upon yourself, and all you will gain will be a little annoyance
to me.
Of course, I understand why you are angry at me.
You thought I had been attacking and misrepresenting you. I have never
done that and I never shall.
You thought I had been attacking and misrepresenting you. I have never
done that and I never shall.
When you issued last year the statement which the
newspapers carried to the effect that you thought the boys in Wrangell
Island were probably in great danger if not dead, you showed not only
that you had every reason to try to reach Wrangell Island but you
showed also your lack of information about the situation there. You
newspapers carried to the effect that you thought the boys in Wrangell
Island were probably in great danger if not dead, you showed not only
that you had every reason to try to reach Wrangell Island but you
showed also your lack of information about the situation there. You
- 2 -
gave, for instance, as one of your reasons for thinking they were in
trouble that they had had no dog team. Of course, everyone who saw them
outfit in Nome knew that they had a team of seven dogs that was consider
ed a good team in Nome. I do not make a practice of replying to newspaper
attacks in print, although I occasionally protest to those who make them
through private letters. But in conversation I have defended your state
ment of a year ago, saying that you had either been misinformed at Nome
by someone or else misquoted by the newspapers. I have usually said that
I supposed the papers were to blame.
trouble that they had had no dog team. Of course, everyone who saw them
outfit in Nome knew that they had a team of seven dogs that was consider
ed a good team in Nome. I do not make a practice of replying to newspaper
attacks in print, although I occasionally protest to those who make them
through private letters. But in conversation I have defended your state
ment of a year ago, saying that you had either been misinformed at Nome
by someone or else misquoted by the newspapers. I have usually said that
I supposed the papers were to blame.
You have again been misinformed when you say that
Lorne Knight's diary says that a ship could have reached Wrangell Island
the fall of 1922. The diary does not say any such thing. There is a
mention that the seas to the south of the island was open in the month of
October, but it is equally clear from the diary that when the sea thus
opened the boys had no expectation of a ship coming, for they knew that
the season was already too late and also they knew that the mere fact
of the ocean right by the island being open did not prove that it would
be open near the coast of Siberia and that a ship would be able to come
if it tried. Of course, I realize you have not seen the diary. Since you
have not seen it, it is all the more advisable for you not to make any
statements as to what the diary contains.
Lorne Knight's diary says that a ship could have reached Wrangell Island
the fall of 1922. The diary does not say any such thing. There is a
mention that the seas to the south of the island was open in the month of
October, but it is equally clear from the diary that when the sea thus
opened the boys had no expectation of a ship coming, for they knew that
the season was already too late and also they knew that the mere fact
of the ocean right by the island being open did not prove that it would
be open near the coast of Siberia and that a ship would be able to come
if it tried. Of course, I realize you have not seen the diary. Since you
have not seen it, it is all the more advisable for you not to make any
statements as to what the diary contains.
In case you are relying on the quotations alleged
to be from the diary published by Mr. Noice, I had better warn you that
these quotations do not correspond to the diary itself. Mr. Noice tore
out of the diary a number of pages and retained them for some time. We
have now been able to frighten him into giving them up and it turns out
that many of the things which he alleged were in the diary are not actu
ally in it.
to be from the diary published by Mr. Noice, I had better warn you that
these quotations do not correspond to the diary itself. Mr. Noice tore
out of the diary a number of pages and retained them for some time. We
have now been able to frighten him into giving them up and it turns out
that many of the things which he alleged were in the diary are not actu
ally in it.
You are also wrong in supposing that the diary said
that Crawford, Galle and Maurer left Wrangell Island in a desperate
attempt to try to secure food from Siberia. The diary does say plainly
that when they left they had entirely other motives. They were going to
Nome for the purpose of sending me despatches according to which I could
govern the outfitting of the ship that went out in 1923. They doubtless
had also the motives of getting in touch with the Siberian traders, to
get newspapers etc. The trip was planned seven months before it was
made, at a time when they expected no shortage of food. Even the time
of starting was settled then and they did start within a week of the pre
arranged time. It is true that food was short when they started, but it is
equally clear that they would have started with the same sort of outfit,
at the same time of year, and with the same prospects of success if there
had been a thousand tons of food on the island. Indeed, their most ser
ious mistake in outfitting was that they made the first start with pro
visions for thirty days, which was too heavy a load for the sledge, mak
ing travel slow and making them fearful of going into rough ice because
they thought the sledge might break under the heavy load.
that Crawford, Galle and Maurer left Wrangell Island in a desperate
attempt to try to secure food from Siberia. The diary does say plainly
that when they left they had entirely other motives. They were going to
Nome for the purpose of sending me despatches according to which I could
govern the outfitting of the ship that went out in 1923. They doubtless
had also the motives of getting in touch with the Siberian traders, to
get newspapers etc. The trip was planned seven months before it was
made, at a time when they expected no shortage of food. Even the time
of starting was settled then and they did start within a week of the pre
arranged time. It is true that food was short when they started, but it is
equally clear that they would have started with the same sort of outfit,
at the same time of year, and with the same prospects of success if there
had been a thousand tons of food on the island. Indeed, their most ser
ious mistake in outfitting was that they made the first start with pro
visions for thirty days, which was too heavy a load for the sledge, mak
ing travel slow and making them fearful of going into rough ice because
they thought the sledge might break under the heavy load.
I know you have been depending on Noice's newspaper
statement to the effect that the boys were weak with hunger when they
started and that the dogs were also weak with hunger. The diary, how
ever, shows the contrary. The only thing it says about any weakness
either of the men or the dogs is that the dogs were soft from lack of ex
ercise at the time Crawford and Knight made their first start.
statement to the effect that the boys were weak with hunger when they
started and that the dogs were also weak with hunger. The diary, how
ever, shows the contrary. The only thing it says about any weakness
either of the men or the dogs is that the dogs were soft from lack of ex
ercise at the time Crawford and Knight made their first start.
- 3 -
Please don't infer from this letter that I am
angry about what you have said in the newspapers. I am so often and
unreasonably attacked by various people that I have long ago got
over being angry. I am only trying to point out to you your unwisdom
from your own point of viewin attacking people who are trying to de
fend you and in making statements which you could not prove if you
were asked in a law court or otherwise to do so. Some of your pub
lished statements are, of course, correct; but they are statements
where you and I agree. You have thought we disagreed about them but
you have been mistaken in thinking so. The statements where we dis
agree are those you make without knowledge, as, for instance, when
you say that I have said certain things which I never have said, and
when you say that Knight's diary contains certain things which it does
not contain.
angry about what you have said in the newspapers. I am so often and
unreasonably attacked by various people that I have long ago got
over being angry. I am only trying to point out to you your unwisdom
from your own point of viewin attacking people who are trying to de
fend you and in making statements which you could not prove if you
were asked in a law court or otherwise to do so. Some of your pub
lished statements are, of course, correct; but they are statements
where you and I agree. You have thought we disagreed about them but
you have been mistaken in thinking so. The statements where we dis
agree are those you make without knowledge, as, for instance, when
you say that I have said certain things which I never have said, and
when you say that Knight's diary contains certain things which it does
not contain.
Thinking you may possibly have left Loyola College
and thinking that you are in this case in need of good advice, I am
sending a carbon copy of this letter to the President of the College
with a short letter urging him to counsel you to be more cautious in
future and to be sure you have been attacked before you again begin to
defend yourself. A person may easily put himself in very bad light
even when he is innocent when he is trying to defend himself against
serious charges which he only imagines someone has made.
and thinking that you are in this case in need of good advice, I am
sending a carbon copy of this letter to the President of the College
with a short letter urging him to counsel you to be more cautious in
future and to be sure you have been attacked before you again begin to
defend yourself. A person may easily put himself in very bad light
even when he is innocent when he is trying to defend himself against
serious charges which he only imagines someone has made.
(Signed) V. Stefansson.
Captain Joseph F. Bernard
P.S. I note in re-reading your letter of April 5th
that you ask why I now want a further statement from you. On examin
ation also my letter to you of March 26th I find that I have there
stated the reason clearly. I wanted to have from you, for the pur
pose of defending you, a statement to the effect that you had made
a faithful attempt to reach Wrangell Island in 1922. I still think
it advisable for you to make such a statement both because I know
it is true and because the truth will serve you best. Also, as I
said above, I want to spare the relatives the pain of thinking that
the tragedy of Wrangell Island was one which you could have pre
vented had you wanted to.
that you ask why I now want a further statement from you. On examin
ation also my letter to you of March 26th I find that I have there
stated the reason clearly. I wanted to have from you, for the pur
pose of defending you, a statement to the effect that you had made
a faithful attempt to reach Wrangell Island in 1922. I still think
it advisable for you to make such a statement both because I know
it is true and because the truth will serve you best. Also, as I
said above, I want to spare the relatives the pain of thinking that
the tragedy of Wrangell Island was one which you could have pre
vented had you wanted to.
You must remember that the relatives are familiar
with all the correspondence between you and me and with the various
statements you have made both in the papers and in writing. They have
also talked with Mr. Carl Lomen, with Aarnout Castel and others fam
iliar with conditions in Alaska and Siberia.
with all the correspondence between you and me and with the various
statements you have made both in the papers and in writing. They have
also talked with Mr. Carl Lomen, with Aarnout Castel and others fam
iliar with conditions in Alaska and Siberia.
If you now want to say that you could have reached
Wrangell Island in 1922 had you known the men were in danger, you will
have to explain why you said a year ago that you thought the men were
in danger but that reaching the island was impossible. I say again
that we all know your statement last year was true. In that case, why
try to change it now?
Wrangell Island in 1922 had you known the men were in danger, you will
have to explain why you said a year ago that you thought the men were
in danger but that reaching the island was impossible. I say again
that we all know your statement last year was true. In that case, why
try to change it now?
Loading...