Mr. Redfield’s Second Reply to Dr. Hare. 259 
attempt to show facts in disproof? Was it more important to 
array criticisms and speculations than to bring the question to the 
test of strict observation and induction? And will not this eva- 
sion be received as proof of the weakness of hiscause? 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 ? 
Even if Dr. H. should admit gyration to be “sufficiently pro- 
ved,” and “should consider it as an effect of a conflux to supPLy 
an upward current at the axis,” would not this imply a se/f-ele- 
vating power in this “upward current?” And would not the ad- 
mission of gyration decide the question in my favor? 
But he adds further: “Yet the survey of the New Brunswick 
tornado, made on terra firma with the aid of a compass, by an 
observer so skillful and unbiassed as Prof. Bache, ought to out- 
weigh maritime observations, made in many cases under circum- 
stances of difficulty and danger.” Now let me ask—Is gyration 
disproved by this survey? I trow not: and apprehend that I 
have sufficiently shown its results to have been consistent with 
a general rotative action. 
Still unwilling to admit rotation, he appeals to the storm of 
December 21, 1836, in the terms which follow. 
“In like manner great credit should be given to the observations collected a 
Prof. Loomis cting a remarkable inland storm of December, 
storm commenced blowing between south and east to the westward of the oe 
sippi, rat travelled from west or northwest to east or southeast, at a rate of be- 
er y and forty miles per near: Ty caved — to have been — 
con he 
pe 
ata ninimamey and towards which the wind b rege so on the one side pe 
fom, between ar and south, and on the ry ay between north and west. [?] 
d from southwest to northeast more than two thousand miles. 
Its groitt ones proportion to its breadth seems neilable with its having 
formed the axis of a whirlwind. [!] The course of this storm, as above stated, 
Was at right angles to that attributed by Redfield to storms of this kind. [!] (Trans. 
Am. Phil. Soc. Vol. 7.)” 
We have it here asserted that “this storm”.. . “ travelled 
from west or northwest to east or southeast :” and that, “ The 
course of this storm, as above stated, was at right angles to that 
attributed by” me to other storms. While at the same time we 
are told that the area, “throughout which the barometric column 
ne ee ee hg el 
* Article on the New Brunswick tornado, in this Journal, Oct. 1841, Vol. xx1, 
