On the Falls of Niagara. 67 



for their retaining their perpendicularity; and, surely, 

 an explanation of phenomena, on the principles of the 

 well-known laws of matter, should be deemed pre- 

 ferable to the language of your author, on the same 

 subject. 



The position of the Island, which divides the Falls, 

 is the next argument which he advances to refute the 

 opinion which I am advocating. The base of this 

 island should, he thinks, project beyond the sheet of 

 water, provided the ledge of rock were fast wearing 

 away. This, certainly, would have been the case, 

 provided both sheets had moved considerably since 

 their separation : but this they have not done, for 

 while the large sheet has moved, perhaps three hun- 

 dred yards, the small one has been almost stationary. 

 The cause of this difference is so obvious, as to need 

 no explanation. Now, it is evident, that if the two 

 sheets were in contact at their inner ends, and the 

 larger one then moved up the river to the place it, 

 at present, occupies, it would necessarily cut the 

 base of the island, in the manner we find it. This 

 explanation may, perhaps, seem difficult to be under- 

 stood by those who have not seen the Falls; but 

 must be obvious to those who have examined them. 



The remainder of the arguments which the gentle- 

 man employs, are, I think, still more feeble than 

 those which I have considered. 



Are not the Falls of Niagara likely to prove the 

 best test (although by no means accurate), of the a^e 



