Mr. RedfieWs 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 supports 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 whirling 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, and hence 

 the awful and destructive violence displayed by tornadoes and 

 hurricanes." — "1 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 any which he or Mr. Espy has 

 offered. 



] 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 disavowment. With the facts 



Vol. xLii, No. 2.— Jan.-March, 1842. 40 



