256 Mr. RedfieWs Second Reply to Dr. Hare. 



this time to be held in more favor by Dr. H. than by myself. In 

 par. 51, with characteristic fairness, he has joined a passage from 

 the same paper to another from a subsequent paper, and has ad- 

 duced it, with a formal reference, as a continuous quotation from 

 the latter. I see little advantage, however, that he can derive 

 from it: The "unresisted rotation" refers to the seeming non- 

 resistance of the air to a mass turning on its own axis : And did 

 he never know the rotative velocity of a moving body to " be- 

 come accelerated" by the oblique "resistances" of other bodies 

 with which it came in contact ? 



In par. 53-56 my opponent labors to convict me of inconsis- 

 tencies in various passages which he has culled from my reply to 

 Mr. Espy in the "Franklin Journal;" — as if any inconsistencies 

 of mine could disprove the rotative and progressive character of 

 storms. The alleged inconsistencies result only from his con- 

 founding cases which I view as distinct, and from some inaccu- 

 racies in the choice of terms. — This labor is also continued on a 

 collection of passages on the barometer. [57-61.] Had our ob- 

 jector given as much attention to the operations of nature in the 

 open air, as he has to the phenomena exhibited in the laboratory, 

 he could not by any possibility have fallen into the error which 

 is exhibited in these paragraphs. It is singular enough that a 

 critic who has detected so much of what he has pleased to fancy 

 inconsistencies and contradictions in my writings, should have 

 failed to perceive that the space " around the exterior border" 

 might, nay indeed must be something very different from the 

 " first portion" or "last portion of the gale." Observation has 

 shown that most of our winter storms are preceded by a high 

 state of the barometer, and that the beginning of the storm is 

 shewn by the falling of the mercury, which rises when the heart 

 of the storm or gale is passed and the wind changes. 



Of inaccurate or fictitious quotation, I am sorry to notice an 

 example in "the reliable facts and observations of our theorist f^ 

 [par. 62] — exhibiting a manner of controversy which can in no 

 wise contribute to the advancement of science. Of the quota- 

 tion which is here adduced, I believe that not more than three 

 words can be found together in my writings. 



In his criticisms on my statements of the changes of wind in 

 storms, [62-68] Dr. Hare fails to notice the distinction between 

 '■^suddenly'''' and immediately, in passages which in their ori- 



