Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1910-05-27
CASE AGAINST BROCK.
Army Officers Expenses Less Than
Those of Boyd's Assistant.

Army Officers Expenses Less Than
Those of Boyd's Assistant.
Lieutenant C. H. Cabaniss, a retired
United States army officer who Is sta
toned in the office of the adjutant gen.
eral, was the principal witness Tues
day before the court Of inquiry that Is
investigating the charges that General
Boyd recently made against his mill
tary assistant and political competitor,
Col Brock. The evidence of Lieut..
Cabaniss Is given by the Columbia
State as follows:
Col. Cabaniss said that he mad made
three inspections Of the state militia
together with Col. Brock. The in
spectlons were made in 1907, 1908 and
1909. He inspected the general condi-
ton Of the state militia and reported
the same to the national department at
Washington. His reports were finally
submitted to the secretary Of war.
He stated that he would always ad-
vance personally his expense accounts
and that at the end of inspections
would make up an itemized account
which was paid by tine government
through the paymaster general Of the
war department. He was allowed 7
cents per mile. His hotel expenses
were not to exceed Sc per day. His ex-
penses for the past two years were:
1908, $142.72; 1909, $156.62.
He travelled over the same route as
Col Brock, he said, with the excep-
ton Of one or two instances where he
travelled farther than Col. Brock, Col.
Brock having business in Columbia
and being unable to make inspections
at Liberty Hill and Lancaster. He
made every point with Col. Brock in
1907 and also in 1908. He said he and
Col Brock, except In a few rare in
stances where ne supposed that Col.
Brock had stayed with relatives
had stopped at the same hotel
and many times in the same room. He
was questioned closely as to his Item
lied expense account for the year 1909.
He testified referring to his receipt
book and the schedule of places where
he and Col. Brock inspected companies.
His statements were clear, and he re-
fused to answer any questions that
he did not remember clearly.
Pelzer.
He said that he and Col. Brock in
spected the military company at Pei
zer in 1907. They were the guests of
Capt ]. Adger Smyth and that he re-
mained in Pelzer a day longer than Col.
Brock. He said that they were not
charged for board while at Capt.
Smyth's, at least he was not.
Voucher No. 55 produced from the
records by counsel for Gen. Boyd de-
veloped the fact that Col. Brock had
put down his Motel fare at Pelzer as
being "a. Col Cabaniss said that II
Col Brock paid anything for stopping
with his guest, he did not know 1t.
HartsviIle.
The next place to come under con-
sideration was Hartsville. The two
men stopped at that town In 1907 on
March 2S They were there for one
day, according to the statement by the
witness. He said that they were the
guests of Capt. Chas. Coker. He said
that ne was with Col. Brock all Of the
time. Voucher No. 42S produced show
ed that Col Brock had an itemized ex-
pense of "a for Hartsville for hotel bill,
also so cents hack fare, so cents trans
fer and 40 cents for a telegram.
Charleston.
It was the statement of witness that
they paid no hotel bills in Charleston
and that they occupied the same room
at the Argyle hotel. This was during
the 1907 inspections. Voucher 296 had
an itemized account by Col. Brock for
$3.50 for hotel bills, besides the usual
hack and transfer bills.
Barnwell.
Going back to Barnwell, Col. Caba-
Miss corroborated the testimony OF Mr..
Molair, the owner of the hotel at that
place, with reference to the bills of him
and Col. Brock. This was during the
1909 inspections. They occupied the
same room at Barnwell. 1t was the
statement that they arrived in Barn.
well at about o'clock in the morning
and that they left at o'clock in the af-
ternoon. They only spent part of the
day at the hotel. Col. Cabaniss said
that he was informed that the hotel
bill would be nothing and that he did
not pay anything to the hotel proprie-
tor or any one else. The record was
again produced and it was found that
Col Brock had an itemized expense
Of 81 for hotel bill at Barnwell.
Camden.
They went to Camden on April 9 Of
last year, according to witness. They
went on the same train and arrived at
about 10 o'clock in the morning and
left about 10 o'clock at night. They
were there for approximately one day
and did not spend the night. They were
at the same hotel at Camden. Witness
said that ne paid the sum Of $3.50 as his
hotel bill. According to voucher 27S,
Col. Brock had an itemiZed expense ac-
count for Camden as follows: Hotel
bill, $12, mack, so cents: team, "a;
transfer, so cents.
Col. Cabaniss said that he had in
spected the militia at Camden together
with Col Brock and that no team
had been hired that he knew of. He
said that both drove out to the coun-
try with officers Of the local company.
It was here that the counsel for Gen.
Boyd called especial attention to the
fact that the itemiZed statement con-
tanned an item of 81 for team hire,
when Col. Cabaniss had stated there
was no team used except by the Off
GERS of the Camden company.
Chesterfield.
Witness said that a team had been
hired to go from Cheraw to Chester
field as they could not make connec-
ton on the railroads. He said that
the team had cost less than 81 and
that Immediately upon the return he
paid to Col. Brock one-half of the eX-
,,anea Tor tho taan NOuchpr No 29S