Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1910-05-27


er general.
Col Cabaniss said that he returned
an itemized expense account for his
trip to Washington for $30.75. He had
duced 1t in the court. 1t was for tine
amount specified. The warrant in the
comptroller generals office showed that
$50 had been drawn for the expense Of
Col. Cabaniss. 4he question Of who
signed the warrant will be the main
contention from now on.
Is More Restricted.
Counsel for Col. Brock cross exam
ined Col. Cabaniss at length and asked
II he was not more restricted in his
expense accounts by the government
than an official Of this state. Witness
said that he expected that ne was.
There followed a number of questions
as to the number Of times that Col.
Brock came to Columbia during the in
spections. 1t was brought out that
Col Brock has come into Columbia five
times while making the inspection on
business.
Col. Brock on the Stand.
The following from the Columbia
State of yesterday is a summary Of
Wednesdays proceedings:
William T. Brock, who Is charged
with wasting the money of the state
in making the inspections of the COM
panies Of the National Guard Of the
state as assistant adjutant general,
yesterday gave to the court of inquiry
his version of the expense accounts
which he incurred during the past four
years. He was on the stand nearly the
entire day and his cross examination
was not concluded when the court ad-
journed late yesterday. His examina-
tion will very probably be concluded at
tine session today The court will con-
vene this morning at $50 o'clock.
On cross examination, Col. Brock did
not make any definite statements as
to the details Of his expense accounts
as filed with the comptroller general
for the years 1907, 1908 and 1909. He
produced a notebook from which he
read his statements for the inspections
Of this year. His answers to all ques-
tions were uncertain and few definite
statements were made. He also stated
that the bookkeeping system in the
office was defective and in many in
stances no records were kept by Gen.
Boyd.
Col Brock stated to the members of
the court that his itemiZed accounts
were not correct, but that the total
amounts put down as expended had
been expended, and that they were alb
solutely correct
He stated to the court that he could
not remember all Of the money that he
had spent as assistant adjutant gen.
eral in making the inspections Of the
state militia.
At the morning session he stated his
position clearly to the court. The his
tory Of the controversy was reviewed.
He said that the most Of his itemiZed
statements were for his actual living
expenses and that when he put down
an item as "hotel," 1t means all that he
spent, such as hotel bills, shining Of
shoes, laundry, polishing Of leggings
and other incidentals He placed lib
eral construction upon his expense
accounts.
The Washington trip was the subject
Of special explanation at the afternoon
session, Col. Brock reviewing the en-
tire matter, stating that ne received
$50 before he left here. He detailed
his expenses, which included Pullman
(two ways), Sc: suppers, 50; breakfasts,
So: hotel in Washington 500.
Col. Brock said that altogether In
the time from Monday afternoon until
Friday afternoon, when he left Wash
ington, he spent $65, but only charged
the state up with $50, for which amount
ne prepared a statement on his re-
turn.
In explanation of the difference in
Col. Cabaniss' expenses and his own,
Col. Brock said that the army officer
had a smaller room, without bath: Col.
Brooks room being with bath; that
Col. Cabaniss did not stay as long as
he did.
Col Brock testified that he prepared
a statement of his expenses and handed
same to Gen. Boyd; that the latter told
him, "Well, I guess Col. Cabaniss' eX-
pense was about the same, so prepare
his also" That he did prepare it, and
the money was paid on both.
That Col. CabanisS later presented
the $30.57 statement, which has been a
casus belli, was Col. Brooks statement
on the stand. Some time later" said
Col. Brock, Gen. Boyd came across the
Cabaniss statement"
Col Brock said he told Gen. Boyd
lIldl COl. CdDdulSS Ildu dlItduS leCeiN-
ed his money and that the warrants
were for a larger amount. and then
the difference was in the bank to the
credit of Gen. Boyd and mad possibly
been expended i'm the usual run Of the
office.
Gen. Boyd's drawer in the desk was
never private until the last two weeks"
said Col Brock. Il am not positive
there was any lock on 1t or
not. A duplicate key was on Gen.
BOyds desk. | often went into the
drawer I don't recall having unlock
ed it at any time
Asked directly about the Cabaniss
statement which Mrs. Moody had tes-
err Col Brock said he did not recall |
having done so: in fact, was positive |
that he had not. and added that if ne
cared to take it out he would not have |
done so in the presence of witnesses.
General Boyd came in for criticism |
from Col Brock, who said that the |
general was practically helpless when |
he took the oath of office as adiutant |
general. I'm my opinion, with all due
Difference" said Col. Brock. Gen. Boyd |
was not in physical condition to attend |
to- the affairs of the office"
Further questions brought out the |
NldleIllcIlt lldl SDl. bIOCk HllllSell ISt' |
attended to the affairs OF
he office for several years.
When Col. Brock had finished his
story of the expense account contract
ID by him in making the inspections
If the militia, he was turned over to
he counsel for Gen. Boyd. There fol-
owed a rapid fire of questions. both
counsel and the assistant adjutant gen.
oral at times become excited and an
,wered I'm heated manner.
Question after question was asked
Hol. Brock as to mis- expense accounts.
His record for the past four years was
probed and he was asked as to every
lct he had committed while in the SER
'ice of the state.
In this statements he eliminated the
names of any hotel and said that ii
yoS fnr livinr eyppnSps He cOul6 not