New-York tribune., 1902-07-04
BISHOP TALBOT SUSTAINED
BT \ VOTE OF TO 4, BOARD OF IN
CURRY DECIDES THERE IS NOT
SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR TRIAL.


Harrisburg, Penn. July 3.-By a vote Of ) 10
f. the beard of inquiry into the charges made
against Bishop Ethelbert Tablet, Of the Central
Pennsylvania Protestant Episcopal Diocese, by
the Rev. Dr.. irvine. decided that the grounds
for a trial were insufficient. and the matter
drops, while Dr.. Irvine remains unfrocked The
charges Of conduct unbeceung bishop were
preferred by DR., Irvine, Of Philadelphia. who
was unfrocked by Bishop Talbot while serving
as rector Of 81. johns Parish, Huntington,
Penn. Tor alleged s6andaIous conduct The
board held three hours session to-day. and
went over all the evidence carefully. paying
particular attention 10 that given by Dr.. Irvine.
and endeayoring to ascertain whether it had
been fully corr0borated by the other Witnesses,
aad after a long discussion adopted The follow
ing resolution, which was offered by Hugh NJ.
North, Of Columbia:
Resolved. That IN the opinion Of the board
there IS not sufficient ground to put the Right
FSeV. Dr. Ethel bert Talbot upon his trial upon
the charge in the presentnent.
The charge in the prasentment was TO the
effect that Bishop Talbot had conspired to un-
frock Dr.. Irvine for the purpose of gratifying
the malice Of Mrs. Elliott. OF Huntingdon.
There we're only nine members of the board
present, Bishop Talbots diocese sending four,
the Maryland diocese three and the New ork
and Western New York dieeeses sending one
how they would have voted. That the friends
Of Bishop Talbot regarded his escape as a
narrow one was shown by their anxious faces
in discussing the verdict A single vote the
other way would have compelled him to stand
trial before court Of bishops The following
was the vote in detail;
D. 4 FsIs 5; Re Re yg Nf an HaP59s' Foss Y 'a Fs Be-
Noes-Tbe Rev. ur W r Bodlre the Rev. Or :. 5.
Thomas
OF the five who voted for the resolution four
are from Bishop Tablets dieeese and one. the
Rev. Dr. Huntington. is from the New-Yerk
Diocese Friends OF DR.. Irvine say that if he
had pressed his challenge against a certain
member Of the board who sat on the csee that
member could not have acted and the vote
would have been a tie. They say that Dr.
Irvine wanted to be charitable and not cause
cay delay in the disposition of the case. fer
had there been tie it would have thrown the
case back several months and Or. irvine would
have b=en accused of quibbIng.
There was some criticism also to the ex-
cIusion ef certain evidence offered against
Bishop Tablet. There vas an AFFIDAVIT the name
Of the signer being kept from the public which
was offered By rr Irvine's attorney from q
man who had testified against Tr. irvine on the
trial that resulted IN the unfrocktnE Of the min
ister. The maker Of this affidavit swears that he
was uhiuly Influenced by Bishop Talbot and
MFs, Elicit, and thai he had entered into a
conspiracy with them against Dr. Irvine Feeling
that he had done the minister injustice. and
wishing at this late dag to make amends FOR
has aCt. Re made the AFT 7aylt in order 10
cI5ar the minister's skirts ana aid him.
Il is said that when Dr Irvine frst entered
Bishop T6lbot's diocese theFe vas an agreement
that at the FIRST sign Of trouble uf any kind
D.. Irvine was te resign at the request of the
Bishop v-ithedt any proceedings whatever
when trouble began and Dr. Irvine refused TO
get out quietly Bieaep Talbot IS said 10 have
written a letter TO Mrs. Elliott. in which he said
that DR. Irvine was a Shiny fellow and that
he would unfreek him.
The record OF the board today VIII ~ csrti
fe1 70 the secretary of the san Francisco con
vention. 10 be preserved IN thz Churtn ar
ehlyesr
Dr. Irvine SAYS he will make application for
the aupointrhAnt n a new board Of Inquiry, 70
take into consideration new testimony which
he is prepared 10 offer.