QUERIES SUBMITTED FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF PROF. ESPY, BEFORE MAKING

HIS NEXT REPORT.

1. Has not experience established, that vessels in approaching the Atlantic coast of the United States, are liable to be subjected, in the first instance, to a violent south-easter, then to a calm or lull, followed by a north-wester, no less violent than the gale first encountered?

2. Whether the gale of 1836, of which the phenomena were recorded by Prof. Loomis, and published in the transactions of the American Philosophical Society, soon after, does not exemplify the origin and progress of such gales, by showing that the wind blew from between north and west, towards an oblong area of minimum barometric pressure, on one side; while it blew towards that area on the other side, from the opposite quadrant of the horizon, between south

and east?

3. Whether the observations thus recorded, do not show that the area of minimum pressure moved gradually from the north-west towards south-east, subjecting every station successively exposed to it, first to a south-easter, then to a lull, and finally to a north-wester?

4. Whether the course of this storm was not from north-west to south-east; and whether it did not, in this respect, agree with the well known gales, or hurricanes, above adverted to as universally called south-easters?

5. These premises admitted, Mr. Espy is requested to explain wherefore, in one of his generalizations, he alleges that storms travel from west towards the east during the five winter months, instead of alleging that they travel from north-west to south-east, consistently with the observations of Loomis above mentioned?

6. Whether, if the language of the generalization were accurate, all gales experienced on the United States coast, would not blow from due east first, and from due west afterwards?

7. Whether there is not another distinct kind of storm, long known and universally recognized as the "north-easter" or "north-eastern gale," which has been distinguished from the south-easter, so called, by its direction, its longer endurance, lesser violence, and by its not being usually followed, after a brief lull, by a north-wester; nor any violent wind in a direction directly opposite to that in which it blew at the beginning of the storm?

8. Whether, moreover, co-existent with this north-eastern gale, there are not always upper clouds, which are to be seen occasionally through openings in the rainy strata, which upper clouds move slowly from the south-west in a direction nearly opposite to that which the scud pursues?

9. Whether, agreeably to the observations of Franklin, and general experience confirming them, our storms producing north-eastern gales do not travel from south-west to north-east, so that they are perceived earlier as the place of exposure is more to leeward?

10. Whether their traveling thus, does not warrant the opinion that they commence in the Gulf of Mexico, and are propagated gradually to the north-east along the Atlantic States, and the neighboring portion of the Atlantic ocean?

11. Whether the observations of Redfield do not establish, so far as they are reliable, that certain storms travel from the Gulf along the coast of the United States, and of course from south-west to north-east; and how these results are to be reconciled with the generalizations in the report, or with the evidence adduced by Loomis?

12. Whether any absurdity which Redfield's inferences involve respecting the interior phenomena of his suppositious whirlwinds, justify distrust of the correctness of the route which they are represented to have pursued?

13. Whether we are to admit a generalization, which agrees neither with Loomis, Franklin, nor Redfield?

14. How can the observations of Franklin, confirmed by a very general impression that they were sagacious and well founded, be reconciled with those made by Loomis, also highly esteemed, unless there be two kinds of storms,

one of which travels from the north-west to south-east, and the other from southwest to north-east?

15. Whether it can be correct to confound both of these kinds of storms under the one generalization of "Storms moving from west to east?"

16. Whether there is any difference in the direction of storms during the warmer months, justifying the restrictions to the colder season, of the generalization that storms move from east to west?

17. Do not tornadoes always move, whether in summer or winter, from west to east?

18. Do not thunder gusts almost invariably move from west to east, usually from N. W. to S. E.?

19. Whether there is any coincidence as to time between the prevalence of the terrific norther of the Mexican Gulf Coast, and that of our north-east gales?

20. Whether they are not both consequent to the displacement of the warmer air lying on the Gulf, by the colder air of the territory of the United States, north or north-east of the Gulf, to whatever cause that displacement may be due?

21. Whether simultaneously with the existence of the norther on the western const of the Gulf, there is or is not, a north-easter blowing from the United States territory eastward of the Allegheny ridge, into the aerial estuary over the Gulf?

22. There being three different climates within the territory of Mexico, according to the altitude of the localities throughout which they prevail, the lower being designated as the hot region, the middle as the rainy region, and the upper or table land of the City of Mexico, as the mild and dry region; whether it is not evident that the clouds of the Gulf do not ever cross the table land; but by their access to the intermediate region, cause its characteristic humidity?

23. Whether in point of fact, the climate of the table land of Mexico and that of the Gulf, are not independent of each other, so that, however an ascent of the air of a portion of the Gulf may render an horizontal afflux to supply its place necessary, the effect will be to draw the whole supply from the lower and comparatively cooler territory of the United States, lying to the north and east of the Gulf?

24. Whether, as the area of the Gulf reaches to nearly two-thirds of the size of the valley of the Mississippi, and the territory of the Atlantic States, it should not have a great influence on the winds of the United States, and whether it does not justify a doubt of the correctness of any sweeping generalizations which do not admit that great estuary to have any influence?

25. Whether the prevalence of gales supposed generally to occur about the time of the Autumnal Equinox, may not be explained by this fact, that the decline of the solar heat in September, cools the land more than the seas by which it is bounded; whence it follows that at this season of terrestrial refrigeration, there will be greater propensity for the air over the land, to displace that of the adjoining seas; and whether this process is not likely to be peculiarly influential in the case of the Gulf of Mexico, and the territory of the United States, thus creating an unusual tendency to the production of north-east gales about the time of the equinox?

26. Whether the north-eastern gale does not cease to be a rainy wind at a certain distance from the United States coast, and if so, at what distance does it become a dry wind, a harbinger of a cloudless sky?

27. Whether this diversity in the character of the north-easter, may not be fairly ascribed to the facts above cited in relation to the Gulf of Mexico, since when the gale in question blows into the basin of that estuary, the air displaced by it being incapable of surmounting the barrier made by the table land and mountains, so as to get off to leeward, it has to flow back over the inblowing gale, furnishing thus the moisture which forms its well known attribute?

28. Whether the fact that, beyond the range of our Atlantic coast, there is no such basin and barrier, is not the reason of their being no moisture associ

ated with winds having a north-eastern direction, since in that case there is no barrier to cause the moist air displaced to flow in an opposite course above that of the displacing current below?

29. Whether the general tendency of the wind, in the upper region, to move from south-west to north-east, over the United States territory, does not fortify the idea that the warm and moist air, displaced from the Gulf, must pursue an opposite route to that of the lower wind by which it may be supplanted ?*

QUERIES RESPECTING THE CONFLICTING EXPLANATIONS OF THE CAUSES OF TORNADOES AND WATER SPOUTS.t

The preceding queries are intended to draw attention to those points of view in which the generalizations of Prof. Espy are apparently irreconcileable with well known facts, extensive experience, or the observations of other meteorologists; but as the learned Professor mingles references to his theory incessantly with his observations, I request that he answer some queries bearing thereupon. I therefore propose the following inquiries:

Whether there are not two well known modes of electrical discharge, by which bodies oppositely electrified are made to neutralize each other, in one of which, electricity passes in a spark, in the other, is conveyed from one surface to the other, by the motion of some intervening body; whence the alternate motion of clappers between bells, of pith balls, or puppets between disks, and of blasts of air from electrified points.

The existence of these modes of discharge being admitted, and also that one of them has been called the spark, or diruptive discharge, the other, the carrying or convective discharge. I ask whether any charge whatever, may not be neutralized either by the convective or diruptive process, so that the one is commutable for the other by a slight diversity of distance.

Whether in every case of the existence of an electric charge, attraction does not take place between the surfaces, or bodies employed to hold it?

Whether it does not follow, that wherever there can be a charge competent to produce the diruptive spark discharge, there must be a competency to produce the convective discharge?

These premises conceded, and it being admitted that lightning is a diruptive discharge on a gigantic scale, does it not follow that there must be a gigantic convective discharge in nature upon a scale of commensurate magnitude?

Let Mr. Espy say where that convective discharge is to be found, if it be not in the tornado or water-spout?

Let him say in what respect the features of the tornado are discordant with those of a convective electrical discharge?

Let him say why the phenomena observed by Allen, are not a magnificent illustration of the alternation of the convective and diruptive discharge?

Is it not evident that when a balloon rises it is pressed up, by the wedging in under it of the heavier surrounding air, and that this, while it presses the balloon upwards, presses downwards on the column of air immediately under it ?¿

If this be a true representation of the process by which a balloon is elevated, how could the ascent of a balloon, however great, at the level of the clouds, dis

Prof. Espy may probably consider his generalizations as justified by the plotted record of his observations, but the examination of them has not created that impression. He has lectured and reported upon his own theory and observations, without bringing those of his predecessors or contemporaries sufficiently into view.

See Merchants' Magazine for February last, page 192.

The observations of Mr. Allen were stated in the following words:-"Being within a few yards of this spot, I had an opportunity of accurately noting the effects produced on the surface of the water. The circle formed by the tornado on the foaming water was about 300 feet in diameter. Within this circle the water appeared to be in commotion, like that in a huge boiling cauldron. The waves heaved and swelled, whenever the point of this cone passed over them, apparently as if some magical spell were acting upon them by the effect of enchantment. Twice I noticed a gleam of lightning, or of electric fluid to dart through the column of vapor. After the flush, the foam of the water seemed immediately to diminish for a moment, as if the discharge of the electric fuid had served to calm the excitement on its agitat d surface."

See Merchants' Magazine for February, page 193, last paragraph.

turb the column of air supporting the balloon, so low down as the base resting on the terrestrial surface?

Does not this reasoning apply equally to a mass of air warmer than that surrounding it, in consequence of the latent heat yielded by condensation of the contained vapor.

Is not this the reason why the inflammation of a stratum of carded cotton above the mouth of an inverted open-necked bell glass, produced not the slightest movement in fibers of the same material, situated on a wire gauze within the bell immediately over the bore of the neck?

Are not all the Espyan requisites for the production of a tornado to be found in the upward current of air over equatorial regions, by which the trade winds are induced? If so, wherefore does not a tornado prevail there, as enduring as that upward current?

QUERIES TO METEOROLOGISTS GENERALLY.

The following queries are not made with any reference to Espy's theory or generalizations; but with a view to complete the series which has at this time been suggested to me as worthy of the attention of meteorologists.

Does it not follow that whenever any portion of the atmosphere is charged positively, or negatively, the aerial particles must undergo a corresponding rarefaction from the reciprocal repulsion consequent to a similar state of electrical excitement? May not this be one cause of a buoyancy and consequent ascentional power, producing a penetration of the region of frost, by the lower strata of the atmosphere?

Whenever electrical repulsion tends to counteract gravitation, is it not reasonable that barometrical pressure should be diminished, and may not oppositely charged aerial masses by rushing together, sustain a diminution of volume, and cause a precipitation of vapor as rain, by super-saturating the space within which they commingle?

If, as above suggested, a diversity of electrical excitement be followed by corresponding variations of the density of the air and of the space occupied by it, whenever by such means a dilatation of bulk occurs in a mass of the atmosphere, will it not take up any moisture to which there may be access sufficient to saturate the additional space occupied; and whenever the opposite change of diminution of volume ensues, will it not deposite a proportionable quantity of moisture?

Is not the action of the air in this respect in taking up and giving out moisture, analogous to that of a sponge, which absorbs or gives out any surrounding liquid, accordingly as it may be allowed to dilate by its own elasticity, or made to contract by mechanical compression?

May not each globule of water in a cloud be inflated with air like a bubble, while this bubble may be expanded by electrical repulsion, so as to be more buoyant, than if it were electrically neutral, and may not this be one cause of the buoyancy of clouds?

May not a buoyancy thus arising, be one source of ascensional power inducing those upward currents which cause rain?

It is well known that clouds intercept the radiant heat given off by the terrestrial surface to such an extent, that white frost, which is always the consequence of radiation, only takes place when the sky is clear. Does it not follow that the clouds must acquire heat by terrestrial radiation, so that the air with which they are associated must consequently be made warmer and more buoyant than it would otherwise be?

Have we not reason then to infer, that the heat arising from radiation, is one of the causes of the buoyancy of clouds?

Nevertheless, for the most, is not the persistence of clouds only apparent? Are they not formed as the vapor, in any rising column of air, reachies the level where there is sufficient refrigeration to condense it; but is not the cloud thus formed, dissolved usually by the air above, of which the dew point is so low as to enable it to take up the precipitated vapor?

Are not the phenomena analogous to those of the fog or cloud, which may appear to surmount persistently the escape pipe of a steamboat boiler, although this is manifestly the effect of a successive condensation of succeeding portions of the aqueous vapor?

JOURNAL OF MERCANTILE LAW.

FREEMAN HUNT, Esq., Editor of the Merchants' Magazine, etc. :—

ST. LOUIS, June 10, 1852. I inclose you the decision of one of our courts upon a commercial question of some importance, here, where there is no statute declaring the authority of a factor over the goods consigned to him-the whole matter being left to the common law :

DUTIES OF A CARRIER IN PRESERVING GOODS INTRUSTED TO HIS CARE.

The case of Bird vs. Cromwell, 1 Mo. R. 81, referred to in the decision of the case of Chouteau vs. Leech, in the Merchants' Magazine for June, 1852, (vol. xxvi., page 715,) may be of some interest, and I send you a note of it:

Bird us. Cromwell, 1 Mo. R. 81. Cromwell brought his action on the case against Bird, for negligence in transporting a quantity of coffee, shipped on board the defendant's barge, from New Orleans to St. Louis, whereby the same got wet and was damaged. On the trial, plaintiff proved the bill of lading, showing the shipping of the coffee, to be delivered in St. Louis, "the dangers of the river only excepted," and also proved, that when the coffee was delivered, part of it had been wet. The defendant proved, that on the voyage, the barge struck a snag and shipped about four inches of water; that, for the purpose of repairs, the barge was got to the shore in about twelve or fourteen minutes, and, the bow being raised, the water ran back and damaged the plaintiff's goods. None of the plaintiff's goods were taken out, but, the leak being stopped, the barge was repaired, and she proceeded on her voyage after a detention of about 24 hours. The court decided, that it was the duty of the carrier to use all exertions to prevent damage, so long as they may probably avail, in all cases, whether the character of the accident be such as, in the event of a total loss, would discharge him or not; and that, in this case, it was the duty of the carrier to use all means in his power to dry the coffee, and, if by opening the barrels and drying the coffee he might have prevented the damage, and he neglected to do it, he was liable for such neglect.

This case was decided in 1821, and has since been considered as the settled law of this State, upon the subject of the duties of the carrier, in preserving the goods intrusted to his care.

Respectfully yours, &c.,

CHAS C. WHITTELSEY, Att'y at Law.

AUTHORITY OF A FACTOR OVER GOODS CONSIGNED TO HIM, ETC. In the Court of Common Pleas, (St. Louis, Missouri, June, 1852.) James Berry, Jr., & Co., vs. Christopher Rhodes.

This was a suit which, under the old code, would have been an action of trover, for the conversion by the defendant of a quantity of glass belonging to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, merchants of Pittsburgh, consigned to Love & Osborne, factors and commission merchants in St. Louis, a large quantity of glass for sale, at six months, or cash, but drew no bills upon the shipment. Love & Osborne's commissions were five per cent, which included storage in their own house, and insurance, but did not include freights, drayage, nor the storage in other warehouses. Love & Osborne paid for freight and drayage about $280. Love & Osborne being indebted to the defendant Rhodes upon a due bill for the sum of $482 89, Rhodes applied to them for payment, and they not having the