The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1902-07-05
Board Of Inquiry by Vote Of 5
to a SuStainS Him.
END OF IRVINE CONTROVERSY
II Was Agreed, Huw,VA, That the Conduct
Of The Preata Was Uhhic,m'ng-
Chlrges That Were Made.

Harrisburg. Pa, July 5.-The board OF
inquiry Of the Episcopal church by vote
OF Ave TO four. refused to sustain the
conspiracy charges preferred by the Rev.
DR.. Irvine. formerly of ST. Johns church.
Huntingdon. against Bishop Talbot, OF
the Central Presbyterian diocese The
resolution adopted by the board says that
'1n the opinion OF the board there is
rot sufficient grounds to put the Right
Rev. Ethelbert Talbot ID. D.. upon his
trial upon the charges in the present.
ment"
Four of the five members OF tho board
that supported the resolution, the Rev.
Drs d. j. Powers and +. G. Foley and
Laymen w f. Reynolds and Hugh NJ.
North, and members of the Central Do
cese and the Rev. DR.. William X. Hunt
ington, who also voted for II, represents
the New York district.
Those who voted against the resolu-
ton were the Rev. Drs. w. b. Bodine,
j. s. b. Hgodes, j. Lewis Parks and +.
w Thomas.
II was learned. however that all nine
members of the board agreed that
Bishop Talbots conduct was "unbecom-
ing a bishop" but five decided II was
not such conduct as TO come under the
exact expression Of the canon law. Four,
however. thought II was such as to call
for a trial and 30 voted.
The finding was disappointing 10 DIR.
Irvine. who believes that the verdict
would have been different IL DR.. Powers
had not been permitted to be a. member
OF the board. In a protest, which is also
signed by p. w. Wood and III. W. PERTH
ken. of Huntington, Dir. Irvine charged
that DR.. Powers was preJudiced against
him.
AN EXCLUDED AFFIDAVIT.
DR. Irvine's friends thing that the ac-
ton OF the board In refusing to admit
an affidavit charging a conspiracy to un-
frock DR.. Irvine greatly operated against
the latters cause and II is said II the
case be reopened the person who made
the affidavit will appear before the board
and testify DIR. Irvine will ask for an
inquiry by a new board.
The affidavit. which was excluded and
which was considered of great import
ance by the adherents of DR.. Irvine de-
clares the trial for alleged forgery OF
DIR. Irvine and the ecclesiastical proceed
ings were begun at the instance OF Mrs.
Emma ID. Elliott, Alexander Elliott and
Bishop Talbot. The afflant says he con-
siders II his duty Ito atone for the part
he took in the matter which he says
he is convinced was a conspiracy on
the part OF the principals" He says
further:
81 am conscious now that I was infu-
enced by my bishop and Mr. and Mrs.
Elliott. and II I were requested TO do
over what I was then misled TO do
would refuse to do so. / was as a
churchman convinced that my higher
duty, was TO follow blindly the wishes
and commands OF my superior ofncer DIR.
Talbot.
Later I had talk with Mrs. Elliott,
and she declared she would willingly pay
DR. Irvine to leave Huntingdon. in order
TO become rid OF him. and IL he left she
would stop all proceedings against him
provided he withdrew his suit against
her.
"In conclusion, believe that the who're
treatment OF Dr. Irvine was unjust and
unchristian. | earnestly desire the rein
statement OF DR.. Irvine to his priestly
functions. believing that 1t would be botn
just and proper. as his conviction was,
l believe. procured by fraud.
DIR. IRvINE's CHARGES
The petition OF DR.. Irvine presented 90
the Episcopal convention In San Fran
cisco asked that Bishop Talbot be placed
on trial on these charges
That the Bishop wrongfully unfrocked
DR. Irvine TO crafty the malice OF
woman; that he disturbed the peaceful
relations OF ST. Johns parish 10 please
Emma u. Elliott; that he was guilty
OF falsehood that he conspired TO have
DR.. Irvine arrested and prosecuted that
he maligned DR. Irvine; that he violated
various rules OF the diocese, and that
he violated his vows OF conservation as
a bishop and scandalized religion and
the church by unbecoming conduct
This presentment was referred to the
present board OF inquiry TO decide whether
the bishop should be tried.