The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1882-07-20
HATS OFF.
some Reasons why Men Become
Ba1dheaded.


some Reasons why Men Become
Baidheaded.
Dio Lewis accounts for the badness of
men in a simply way-theIr habit OF
keeping the head constantly covered. He
says you never see a man lose his hair
below where the hat touches his skull. 1t
will take off clean as you can shave il
down to exactly that line, but never a
hair below, if he had been bald fifty
years. The common black stiff hat,
as impervious as sheet iron, retains the
heat and perspiration. The little hair
glands, which bear the same relation TO
the hair that the seed wheat does to the
plant above the ground, become weak
from the moisture and heat, and finally
become too weak to sustain the hair. II
falls out and badness exists. A man
with a good head of hair needs very little
protection where the hair grows.
'And yet, ," he says, 1--WE men wear i'm
mensely thick fur caps, and
what amounts to sheet iron hats,
and do not dare to step out into the chill
ly atmosphere a moment lest we take
cold. 1t is silly, weak and already q
serious error. The Creator knew what
he was about when he covered a mans
head. 1t has very important function
in protectsng the BRAIN. Badness is q
serious misfortune. 1t will never occur
in any man that wears such hat as / do,
a common white silk hat with 500 holes
in the top, so that there will be more
holes than hat. This costs nothing; the
halter will do it when you purchase your
hat. If the nap be combed b ,ck the
wrong way, and after the holes are made
it be combed the right way, no one will
observe the popularity. The hat will
wear quite as long-the matters say con
siderably longer-becsuse it is dry instead
of moist; IN brief there is not a single
objection to it, while it will certainly
prevent badness, keep the top If the
head cool and prevent much headache.
The Russell Case.
From Saturdays Daily.l
The evidence in the case against Col
onel Russell having closed, we give q
brief resume of the case up to the present
time
THE PROSECUTION.
The indictment upon which he is being
tried is for rendering against the United
States government false, fictitious and
fraudulent claim for expenses on trans.
porting two convicts from Huntsville,
Texas, to Auburn, New York. In the
account rendered by Russell he charged
for railway fare, subsistence and pei
diem for three guards. Wolff, ]. E.
Lucy and w. E. Singleton-from
Austin to Auburn, New York,
and return. The government
introduced witnesses who proved that W.
E. Singleton only went with the party
from Marshall to st. Louis and that Rus.
sell paid no part of his fare for that dis
lance. In order to prove guilty knowl-
edge on the part of the defendant, the
government introduced five other &C.
counts against the government by Rus
sell and offered evidence to show that
they were in part false. One of the ac-
counts was for transporting nine
convicts from San Antonio to Ches-
ter, Illinois. In this case Russell
obtained from the Galveston, Har-
risburg and San Antonio rail.
way company reduced rates for him.
self, prisoners and guards, paying for
tickets, including return fare for himself
and guards, S270, while he charged
therefor the sum of $11l5.S5. He also
charged $1S for three buses for trans
ferring the prisoners from the Jail TO the
depot at San Antonio, while from the
evidence it appeared that he only paid
$3. 75. The other four accounts were for
the services and expenses of deputies
Mcfarland, McMasters, Jones and
Latham. 1t was proven that the ac-
counts were entered in the blotter
in the deputy marshals office at
San Antonio at the time that the sci vices
were rendered and the expenses incurred
and afterwards made out for presenta-
ton to the government as vouchers for
disbursement of funds. In making out
these accounts it was shown that the
amounts were raised in some cases over
100 per cent. 1t was also shown that the
affidavits attached to the accounts of Nc
Masters and Jones were forgeries. This,
in brief, was the case sought to be made
out by the prosecution
THE DEFENSE.
The principal effort of the defense was
to establish the fact that Colonel Russell
was ignorant of the character
of the accounts at the time he
presented them for allowance. Colonel
Russell himself and his former deputies,
Hupperlz, Lucy and Goldwater, were the
principal witnesses. According to their
testimony all the accounts in the mar.
shals department were made up by dep
uties without consulting Colonel Russell
and without his supervision. He entrus-
ted the matter wholly to Huppertz, his
chief deputy. The latter stated that he
made up all accounts from data given
him by other deputies, and while he was
solicitOus to give them all that the law
allowed, he had in no case passed any
item that he did not think Just and right.
In the Auburn account Huppertz obtain.
ed the memoranda from which he made
it from the deputy, Wolff, who, accor-
charge of the details of the
trip. In the Chester account evidence
was given to show that the low rates
given to Russell were intended as per.
sonal favor to himself, and were not in
tended for the benefit of the government.
So understanding, Russell instructed his
deputy to charge in the account full rates
and claimed that he took the advice of Dis
trict Attorney Evans, who advised him
that he had right to do so. As to the
item for the hire of buses at San Anto
MO, it was shown that several hacks were
also used and that the amount actually
paid out was in excess of the sum charged.
In regard to the deputies vouchers, Hup-
pertZ testified that the reason that
the amounts were increased was because
he had changed them from mileage to
actual expense accounts, and had added
the deputies per diem, which did not
appear on the blottdr. He did not claim
to have been governed by the exact
facts, but was governed in fixing the items
by the time that the deputies were out
and the distance that they travelled. He
commended that they were honest and
just as they passed from his hands, and
called for no more money than the depu
ties were actually entitled to. No ex
PLANTATION was given as to the forged GER
tificates, but the matter was in no way
brought home to Colonel Russell. II
appears, too, from all the testimony that
he knew nothing concerning the items
of any of the accounts, he trusting every
thing to his deputies. Colonel Russell in
his testimony stated that he did not ex-
anime any of them before presenting
them, and swore to them as correct
because he placed implicit reliance in
those who made them out, and repre-
sented to him that they were correct.
There were other minor points brought
out by the testimony, but the above is a
~