Montour American. (Danville, Pa.) 1866-1920, 1903-01-15
bishop TALBOT'S
VINDICATION

Of Huntington county, vindicating
Bishop Etheibert Talbot, of the Cent
raj Pennsylvania diocese oi the Epis-
copal church, of the charges Of con
spiracy preferred by the Rev. l. n.
W. Irvine, has been received. In view
of the bishops vindication, and the
widespread public interest shown in
the trial of the case, the News here
with reproduces Judge Bailey's charge
in part
Gentlemen Of the Jury This is an
action to recover damages which DR.
|. \. W. Irvine, the plaintiff, claims
he sustained by reason of au alleged
conspiracy between Emma D. Elliott,
Rt. Rev. Ethelbert Talbot and Alex
ander Elliott, the defendants, where
by he was deposed from the ministry.
st. Johns Protestant Episcopal church
of Huntingdon, in 1898 was what Is
known as mission church. That
Is, it was church which received aid
from the diocese in support of its
rector. 1t is located within the ter
ritory Of the diocese Of Central Penn
sylvania. Rt. Rev. Ethelbert Talbot,
one of the defendants, Is the bishop of
the diocese, aud it was his duty to
supply tho church with a minister so
long rs it was a mission church. ON
March 22nd, 1898, he appointed DR..
Irvine, the plaintiff minister. He
testifies that he knew that troubles
had arisen IN other churches which
had been served By DR.. Irvine, which
he believed were attributed to his
conduct, but being willing to give
him another trial. he exactod from
him, at the time of his appointment,
promise that he would resign from
St. Johns when lac (the bishop would
request him.
Not many months had elapsed be-
fore tho bishop learned OF trouble be-
tween DR.. Irvine and the other min
listers of the borough of Huntingdon,
and between him and the management
of the Pennsylvania Industrial Re
fOrmatory, located across the river
from the town, and that seriOas trOu-
BILE had arisen in the church Its
members had become divided and
! members of the vestry had resigned.
/ Ugly TumOrs as to the moral character
8 n. -.
ears. On Feb. II, 1899, he wrota D.
Irvine u letter, reminding him Oh his
promise that ne would quietly leave
| the church if any trouble arose and
requesting him to leave Huntingdon.
This letter is couched in very friend
ly terms DR.. Irvine formerly resign
ed as rector of the church, but ma
| jority OF the church vestry, on Feb.
20 +, 1899 declared the church with
| drawn from any claim for aid from
the missionary fund and formally
! called DR.. Irvine TO be its rector. The
bishop thereafter had no power 10 COM
pei him to relinquish his rectorship
unless he had or would violate some
canon of the church.
Mrs. Emma D. Elliott, one of these
| defendants, had been a warm personal
| friend of Dr. Irvine and was "a very
| generous contributor to the church. 4
trouble arose between the rector and
her about a claim which Mr.. Harm
ed, OF Altoona, had against the church
Mrs Elliott testifies that she gave to
DR.. Irvine money to pay the claim and
that Irvine instead of paying the
| claim kept the money. This circum-
stance seems to have cstranged Mrs.
| Elliott and DR.. Irvine. To that time
she was admitted to the communion
by Mr.. Houghton, the immediate pre-
decessor of DR.. Irvine, rs well as by
DIR. Irvine himself DR.. Irvine then
barred Mrs. Elliott from the com
munion because she was divorced
woman for reason contrary to the
canon of the church. Correspondence
was had between him and the bishop
and Mrs Elliott on the subject W.
do no. regard this circumstance Of mat.
eriality in the determination of this
case, although Mrs. Elliott seemed
then desirious of having him deposeC
from the rectorship of this church.
Complaints of DR.. Irvine's conduct
We're made by her to the bishop. Sub
sequently letter was received by the
bishop, purporting to be signed by Mrs
Elliott, Withdrawing Tor practically
withdrawing all complaints she haC
made against DR.. Irvine, and request
ing that he be retained at St John
church.
This letter was sent by the bishol
to Mr.. Elliott, one of the defendant
and the husband of Emma ID. Elliott
She denied writing or signing 1t. Th,
bishop then wrote her that if she coulC
convince Dr. Irvine of the forgery of l
he would unfrock the Shiny fellow.
This letter is destroyed. and there
fore, not produced, but several wit
nesses who heard it read testify tina
that was the import of it. \ couple
of them testify that tie bishop in tina
letter advised the Elliotts TO have hin
convicted. The bishop positively de
MES that he advised the conviction o
DR.. Irvine for that offense.
If this minister of the gospel wa
guilty of forging that letter, we fai
to see why the bishop should b,
criticised for advising that he be triet
in court of justice, which was the very
place TO try him for forgery, If he
were guilty of forgery. Prosecution
for the forgery was advised by Mrs
Elliott's attorney, ex-Judge William
son reputable member of the bar
and Mrs. Elliott commenced the pros
ecation. | believe that Mrs. Elliott
was the prOsccutrix, although il is no
| very clearly shown in tho case 4