New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-12-28
alton and conservation
Conduct unbecOming a bishop.


Conduct unbecoming bishop.
Bishop Potter in conversation with a Tribune
representative yesterday. disavowed knowledge
of any warrant for Bishop TaIbot's statement
that DR.. Potter would bear out all DIT. Talbot
had said against I n. ". Irvine. the minister
whom Bishop Talbot unfrocked.
Herbert Noble. of No. % willian-st-. coun-
sci for the presenters OF the case against Bishop
Talbot. issued yesterday long statement.
The Rev. DR.. Morgan Dix has resigned the
Craftsmanship of the board Of inquiry. the Rev.
DR.. W. B. Bodine, OF Philadelphia. taking his
place.
Bishop Potter will probably oe one OF the
jury of eleven bishops before which DR.. Talbot
may be tried, in the event OF the board finding
charges against him.
IN letter written by Bishop Talbot to the
Rev Samuel Upjohn." the Tribune reporter re-
marked to Bishop Potter. "the writer says that
you will bear out all that he has said against
Mr. Irvine's character"
HAS NOT COMMUNICATED WITH HIM.
Bishop Talbot did not say that did her.
asked Bishop Potter in turn. Then he added:
II have not communicated with Bishop Talbot,
and have no knowledge OF such a fact. 1t
would be highly improper, however. for me to
the nature OF a. judicial proceeding
But you are not personally interested in the
case. are you?" was asked
Not bit. not biz" Bishop Potter FASTENED
TO reply.
And you are not member of the board Of
inquiry added the reporter.
That is true" replied Bishop Potter But
suppose there should be jury Of bishops and
should be asked to serve on it. I have Moth
in closing.
is based this letter from Bishop Talbot to
Mr.. Upjohn. wide and weighty significance
attaches TO Bishop Potter's remarks.
Mr.. Mobiles statement declares as untrue Bish-
op Talbot's declaration that Dr. Irvine has ever
been under the ban OF ecclesiastical discipline
1t likewise denies Bishop Talbot's assertion that
some bishops have charges against DR.. Irvine.
Mr. MOBILES STATEMENT.
Mr.. Mobiles statement follows.
For the last ten days have been frequently ~
some statement concerning the presentrnent which
has been fled against Bishop Talbot
have refrained from saying anything until now
The matter having become public however. am
give an outline OF the facts.
The supreme Court OF Pennsylvania said OF Bishop
Undoubtedly defendants Bishop Talbot and Mrs.
Elliott combined 70 prefer charges against Irvine
bort the sb ehg5sn squirt and 9S5s s IN e9nSer S
PPiqbo,Ss tbei sIto,, MA ti1T, 49, not Gn5aMIul
posed from the ministry. That they also
hated him. and by their course possibly gratined
less worthy motives than those which prompt a
us fnTS5an n 70 aeu 6 o. no moment sxesPt
as witnesses 6efoTe he eogrt which tried him"
This case Went on because the civl courts could
no; review the action OF an ecclesiastical court.
bot excommunisate because she had married after
grounds other than adIltery She was nu S51oT On
gndec eano9 law not lawfully married 70 her pres
Sxeommunieate because she was, under canon law
Although therefore. this case went on for want OF
Jurisdiction the public understand the gravity
sylvania says that this bishop the church com
HRGd vain nhd Sq ISa e hs fS G5Fgs
were prompted in their course BY hate and other
Not content with having deposed Irvine FINN n.
haed Rm and %tRoa T IN as 5he e9Ust
upon to say anything about Dr. Irvine voluntarily
to the Rev DIT. samuel U9iohn. 'O'i''iAinsG OK
SENT A COPY TO DIR. FULTON.
stin not content. Eishop Talbot. without cause.
sent a copy Of this letter TO the Rev. DR.. John
1t was after the sending OF the copy OF the lsttsr
Sst learned Of n the eIse a Of 5h Such me
was 1eIt oy them that the Church generally should
and vindietiveness and un-Christianiiks motives
was sun pursuing a man whom this bishop had
stand properly the enormity OF facts found By
the supreme Court Of Pennsylvania. that Bishop
charges against Irvine" IL must be borne in MIND
that Bishop Talbot was TO sit the final Judge 10
pass on the evidence which was produced at tha
lott -
They wanted him deposed from the ministry
They also hated him ana by their course
which prompt a true Christian to action was said
by the supreme Cours OF Pennsylvania
Inc letter 70 the Rev. DR.. UpjOhn followst
diocese OF Central Pennsylvania
bishops House, South bethlehem
en- washington. D. c., St Paufs Day 1904
1lr- tuIton knows all about i'm
My Dear DR.. Upjohn: In passing through Phfla.
deIphla happened to meet the Rev. Mr.. Schultz
and he mentioned the fact that some discussior
CIub. feel that you will pardon me II / venture
10 presume on my high esteem for you and con-
ndence IN you TO write you about do r. first.
because cannot AFFORD 10 go into the yellow Jour
nails with Irvine and defend myself But he IS such
plausible rornancer that I ara not greatly sur
prised to learn that in the utter absence OF any
/ to blame.
May I say therefore to you that this man was
cepcSed nearly two years ago for gross immortality
and for lewd and lascivtous conduct with women:
that not OF the questions which he tries to
make capital OF was ever mentioned referred
10 IN MS trial, but that both the committee OF In
Quiry and the court found such a horrible Condition
at Huntingdon that they confined themselveS en-
trely to the evidence there abundantly given. that
twenty Of those years has been under the ban of
ecclesiastical discipline: that he been susoened
once acmonished once Gin your diocese) and in
hioited ana made TO leave repeatedly: that eight
bishops have grave charges against him. that fhe
venerable Bishop OF Quincy wrote to rae on hl4
deathhed that Irvine had outraged two girls in his
his allegation that the bishops (who Know Nm
welD had any dream OF casting any reflection On
our diocese or myself, or had any reference what
All want, and Will, hope soon have, a court ~