New-York tribune., 1902-07-03
TALBOT CHARGES HEARD.
DR.. IRVINE ACCUSES HIS BISHOP Be
FORE INQUIRY BOARD.
STRICT SECRECY OF THE INVESTIGATION
NETWORK PRIESTS AND LAYMEN MEM
BERs OF THE COURT.
Iur TELEGRAPH To THE rRIRrxE,


Harrisburg Penn. July 2-The board of in
quiry 10 ascertain whether there is any ground
on which base trial of Bishop Ethelbert
Talbot of the Central Pennsylvania Episcopal
Diocese on charges preferred by the Rev. DR..
Irvine met this afternoon and organized by the
election of the Rev. DIR. J. s. p. Hodges. OF
Baltimore. president and the Rev. DR.. F c
Foley Of WiIliamsport. as secretary. There was
some change in the personnel of the board as
az first announced. Bishop Talbots diocese
Central Pennsylvania. is represented by the
Rev. DR.. F. c. Foley. Of Williamsport; the Rev
d ]. Powers. Of Pottsville: ". F Reynolds. OF
Renefonte. and Hugh NJ. North. of Columbia
the diocese of Philadelphia by the Rev DR..
w r Bodine. rector Of the Church of Our
Saviour. and Bishop Olmsted. of Colorado;
George c. Thomas. member of the firm of
DrexeI & Co. and F. A. Lewis: the
diocese Of Maryland by the Rev DR.. Hodges.
the Rev DR. J. H. EccIeston, John ". Randall
and Daniel NJ. Thomas. of Baltimore and near
by places.
NEw-YoRK MEN ON THE BOARD
The diocese of Western New-York had orig
inallv been drawn upon for members. but II
was found that the diocese of New-York was
the proper one by reason of territorial limits
and the following were named 10 represent that
diocese: The Rev. DR.. j Lewis Parks the
Rev Dr. William r. Huntington, Francis Lyme
Stetson and ". Bayard Cutting.
Late this afternoon the taking of testimony
was begun, DR.. Irvine being present with MS at
torney. H w Petriken. Of Huntingdon, close
personal friend. The presentation Of the charges
was made by the Rev. ]. a. Harris ana the
Rev. D. I. Oden. Of Philadelphia.
The utmost secrecy was maintained concern
ing the proceedings and all of the members Of
{ fO
statements for publication or to give the least
hint as to the bearing Of the testimony. Bishop
Talbot is not present this not being trial. but
merely an inquiry ON the order Of a grand jury
investigation. The findings will be submitted
TO the House Of Bishops If sufficient evidence Is
found 10 Justify a trial.
After the organization OF the board this al
ternoon there was a long delay over the selec-
tion Of church advocate. or legal adviser,
for the board. and Charles B. McConkey' a mar
risburg attorney, was selected lhe ChurCl az.
Vocate merely sits counsel and dehhes VIVA I
is and what is not legal evidence. for only such
evidence as would be admissible at court trlaI
/ in PENNSYLVANIA will be permitted to go on rec
ord. II was expected that the rules of evidence
would be broader. and the testimony Wouid
/ take a wider scope than IN a FehnS! wanna
court but this was not permitted. and the VII
nesses held down To legal evidence II
the rules of evidence were not so strict. sald
DR. Irvine this evening, we might get more or
the truth into this case"
DR. IRNlNES CASE
Dr. Irvine was the only witness summoned
this afternoon. and he declined 10 talk on what
he had told the court, saying that he had been
cautioned by Dr. Oden. Of Philadelphia, and
others not TO say word. DR.. Irvine however
hinted at an affidavit which he said might be
made public. having a bearing on the case,
but would not say who made it. Mrs. Elliott,
the woman with whom Bishop Talbot is charged
with conspiring 10 unfrock DR.. Irvine, VIII not
/ be called.
II was after II o'clock tonight when the
! board adjourned. II Will meet again tomorrow
II. W. Petriken followed Or. Irvine with a re-
view Of the alleged conspiracy against the priest
and said that in the trial that resulted in the
unfrOCking OF DR.. Irvine not one specification
was sustained by a single witness, and that
/ Bishop Talbot acted reviewer Of a case IN
which he was the most interested person. Will
/ lam r Hillin W. T. Miller and James Denni-
| thorn. of Huntingdon. testified that the conduct
/ OF Bishop Talbot not according TO church
| law.
II Tumored tonight that one OF the inn
portant witnesses in the case against DT- Irvine
! has reConsidered his evidence, and has told a
story directly contrary 10 that given before the
/ court which rendered a verdict that led 10 the
/ deposng of Irvine from the ministry 10y Bishop