"Additional Objections" relating to WJiirlwind Storms. 487 



found "about ten or twelve points of the compass more to 

 the left [on the compass card], than on the coast of the 

 United States in the latitude of New York." 



In the next place, Dr. H. endeavours to show [§ 92-94] 

 that I seem to suppose whirlwinds as capable of being "self- 

 induced." Injustice to his readers, however, he should have 

 quoted the entire paragraph from which he has cited my re- 

 mark, " that whirlwinds and spouts appear to commence gra- 

 dually and to acquire their full activity without the aid of any 

 foreign causes" (Silliman's Journal, vol. xxxiii. p. 61). But 

 can Dr. Hare prove to us "the aid of any foreign causes?" 

 It is proper to note here, that by the above remark I did not 

 intend to exclude the influence of atmospheric pressure and 

 elasticity, nor variations of temperature and density in and 

 about the body in which gyration is induced. Neither do I 

 disconnect or "isolate" the spirally ascending central motion 

 from the great body of the tornado or whirlwinds as he at- 

 tempts to do for me. 



Dr. Hare finally declares [§ 95], " I do not deem it expe- 

 dient to enter upon any discussion as to the competency of the 

 evidence by which the gyration of storms has been considered 

 as proved." The friends of science may well be surprised at 

 this. For, if Dr. H. did not intend to discuss the "evidence" 

 of gyration, for what useful purpose did he "enter the lists?" 

 or why did he attempt to show facts in disproof? Was it 

 more important to array a series of criticisms and speculations 

 than to bring the question to the test of strict observation and 

 induction? And will not this evasion be received as proof of 

 the weakness of his cause? He says that the competency of 

 the evidence has by Mr. Espy been "ably contested." But 

 has it been so " contested " by that writer, as to be decided 

 adversely in the mind of any strict and careful inquirer, or 

 with such scrutiny and arrangement of the facts alleged as 

 would allow them to speak in their own true language*? 

 Even if Dr. H. should admit gyration to be " sufficiently 

 proved," and "should consider it as an effect of a conflux to 

 supply an upward current at the axis," would not this imply 

 a self-elevating power in this "upward current?" And would 

 not the admission of gyration decide the question in my favour? 



But he adds further : " Yet the survey of the New Bruns- 

 wick tornado, made on terra Jirma with the aid of a compass, 

 by an observer so skilful and unbiassed as Professor Bache, 

 ought to outweigh maritime observations, made in many cases 

 under circumstances of difficulty and danger." Now let me 



* Perhaps a partial exception ought to be acknowledged here as relates 

 to one case. See Journal of the Franklin Institute (Philadelphia) for June 

 1839, p. 372-374. 



