Mr. Redfield’s Second Reply to Dr. Hare. 251 
to Dr. Hare, who had chosen to “enter the lists” as a disputant, 
in support of his own and Mr. Espy’s notion of the centripetal 
course of the wind in storms; particularly as this New Bruns- 
wick case had from the first been greatly relied on by these two 
writers, as supporting their peculiar theories. 
At the same time, however, I possessed in my field notes abun- 
dant evidence of the constant rotative action of other tornadoes ; 
and diagrams illustrating some of the traces of these storms had 
long been prepared and cut in wood; but I saw no defect in the 
evidence of rotation already exhibited, that could render the pub- 
lication of these necessary. 
Among the tornadoes the traces of which I had thus prepared 
to illustrate, was that which passed near Providence in August, 
1838, of which some-account has been given by Dr. Hare ;* and 
as the desire to obtain favor for his own electrical hypothesis may 
have induced him to appear as my opponent, I propose, on this 
occasion, to exhibit what I deem to be conclusive evidence of the 
whirling character of his Providence tornado. 
But before proceeding with this evidence, it may be proper to 
take some notice of his rejoinder, which, under the title of “addi- 
tional objections,” appears in the last number of this Journal. 
[This Vol. p, 122.] The friends of strict scientific inquiry have 
probably been disappointed in this paper; for he seems here to 
have abandoned the main question at issue, even as staked upon 
his own allegations, and to have undertaken a petite guerre of 
ctiticisms, which have little if any relation to the evidence on 
which the issue depends. — : ae 
Dr. Hare says he had ‘endeavored to point out variots errors 
and inconsistencies in the theory of storms proposed by me, or 
in the reasoning and assumed scientific principles on which that 
theory had been advanced.” Now it has never been my purpose 
to “propose” or “advance” a “theory of storms’ founded on 
“reasoning and assumed scientific principles.” This has, indeed, 
been attempted by others; with what success, 1s best known to 
attentive inquirers. Whereas, L have mainly endeavored to ex- 
hibit a matter-of-fact view of the actual phenomena of storms, 
so far as relates to their progress, the violent rotative winds which 
they exhibit, and their immediate effectson the barometer. That 
* This Journal, 1840, Vol. xxxvu1, p- 73-77. 
