Mr. RedfieWs 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 his cause ? 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 self-ele- 

 vating power in this " upward current ?" And would not the ad- 

 mission of gyration decide the question in my favor ? 



Bat he adds further : " Yet the survey of the New Brunswick 

 tornado, made on terra jirma 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 by- 

 Prof. Loomis respecting a remarkable inland storm of December, 1836. This 

 storm commenced blowing between south and east to the westward of the Missis- 

 sippi, and travelled from west or northwest to east or southeast, at a rate of be- 

 tween thirty and forty miles per hour. [?] There appears to have been within 

 the sphere of its violence an area, throughout which the barometric column stood 

 at a minimum, and towards which the wind blew violently on the one side only 

 from between east and south, and on the other only between north and west. [.'] 

 This area extended from southwest to northeast more than two thousand miles. 

 Its great length in proportion to its breadth seems irreconcilable 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 staled, 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 



* Article on the New Brunswick tornado, in this Journal, Oct. 1841, Vol. xli, 

 p. 69-79. 



