Mr. Redfield'’s Reply to Dr. Hare. 313 
first entered upon the river, and in its effects upon the sails and 
position of a schooner with which it came in contact ; and like- 
wise, as exhibited by the circling or whirling directions of the 
various objects carried into the air, as it came off the high grounds 
on its approach to the river. The highly intelligent eye-witness 
of my opponent, also describes “the misty vapors’? as ‘“ entering 
the WHIRLING vortex ;” thus showing from his own observation, 
a fact which fully vapeeii my views, and is fatal to. the objec- 
tions, and hypothesis of motion, set forth by Dr. Hare. _ Moreover, 
there were decisive memorials of a general wating action found 
along the path of this tornado. 
Dr. Hare chooses also to say, “ that the explanation which Mr. 
Redfield dignifies with the title of his ‘theory of rotary storms,’ 
amounts to nothing more than this, that certain imaginary non- 
descript unequal and opposing forces produce atmospheric gyra- 
tion, that these gyrations by their consequent centrifugal force, 
create about the axis of motion a deficit of pressure, aud hence 
the awful and destructive violence displayed by tornadoes and 
hurricanes.” —“I cannot give to this alleged theory the smallest 
importance, while the unequal and opposing forces, on which it 
is built, exist only in the imagination of an author who disclaims 
the agency either of heat or electricity.” p. 145. [26-27.] 
The recital of this passage appears necessary on account of the 
gross error into which Dr. H. has here fallen. I have never at- 
‘tempted to dignify any “explanation,” induction, sketch, or essay, 
‘with the title’ of my ‘theory of rotary storms.” It must, at 
“least, have been a mistake of person. I have little fondness for 
theory-making ; and as little respect for hypotheses of winds or 
storms, other than those which result directly from sufficient and 
reliable observations. Neither have I disclaimed “the agency of 
heat,” as already stated ; but it may have been my offense to have 
disclaimed “electricity” as a known cause of storms. My cur- 
sory explanations of the action of a whirlwind or tornado, even 
as shown up by Dr. Hare, are, in my view, better suited to the 
Observed facts of the case than i whieh he or Mr. Espy has 
0. fered. 
I do not solicit for my views even that “smallest importance” 
which is denied them in the mind of my critic; but the attention 
With which he has treated them, both here and abroad, does 
not appear to agree well with the liomprement With the facts 
Vol. xru, No. 2.—Jan.-March, 1842. 
