The San Francisco call., 1904-12-30

Continued From Page I. Column D.
time because of an understanding
based on the condition that Irvine
would not appeal from the courts de-
cision suspending him from the minis
try for one year. The present contro-
versy, in which Bishop TalDot anu Is Sle
church are the central figures, resulted
in the publication Of the document
The verdict found Irvine guilty OF
eleven out of twenty specifications
which were embraced in the genera
charges of suggestion or Wnar IS Ialse'
suppression of the truth, lntenIlon 70
deceive, Justification Of Official docu-
ment falsehood. false swearing and
lascivious conduct. The speclncatlohs
on which he was found guilty covered
all of these general charges, and IRVINE
was suspended from the ministry 1Or
one year He remained for several
months afterward in this city, atIeIhpt-
ed to establish an Independent cnurch'
held few meetings in the opera-hOuse,
performed a couple of marriages anu
other priestIy functions in dehance OF
the decision of the diocesan court, but
finally gave up the fight and went
East.
CHARGES ARE SENSATIONAL
The court that tried Irvine met in
this city in December, 1884. The trial
was aIengthy one and the verdict was
not given until January, 1885, one or
the counts on which Irvine was found
guilty was the alleged mlsrepresenta-
tion of an utterance OF Mrs. Burgess.
The most serious charge against IT
vine was made by Miss Maria W. sea
BODY. a young woman with whose fam
iIv he had become acquainted in Long
island City, where Irvine was once
connected with ST. James Church. On
August %, 1884, the young woman was
married to ]. ]. Miller, organist or the
Cathedral of st. John in this city. Two
weeks later she told her husband or IT.
vines alleged conduct toward her while
;n bis home alleging that he had sew
eral times invaded her chamber and
torn the bed clothing from her while
she was asleep at night and tnat ne
once tore her night robes from her.
No criminal act was charged. Miller
caused his wife to write a statement 70
the Bishop, and this, coupled WIN
other alleged reasons, caused the Blsn-
op to ask Irvine to leave the ministry.
Irvine refused and the trial followed.
BISHOP MAY BE ARRESTED.
PHILADELPHIA, Dec. 29.-Friends
of Rev. DR. Irvine have determined to
fight to finish the charges preferred
against Bishop Talbot If technical
ity in canonical procedure cause
failure of the present presentment, they
will file a new presentment against the
Bishop, with charges Of an even more
surprising character.
THAT the friends of the unfrocked
rector are powerful and men Of means
is shown by the fact that nearly 200
witnesses have been summoned to ap-
pear at Reading in DR.. Irvine's behalf
The report of a possible arrest came
/ to-day in answer to an editorial by
John Fulton in the Standard, the local
| church organ. DR.. Fulton is an ac-
knowledged authority on canOnicaI law.
In an editorial he broadly intimated
| that, owing to the new canon adopted
recently in Boston covering the pre-
sentiment of a Bishop, the present pro-
! ceedings must fail. 1t was impossible
| for DIR. Irvine to sue for criminal libel
| upon the letter concerning him, written
by Bishop Talbot to DR.. Samuel Up
/ john, because Of the statute of limita-
tions. 1t is now asserted. however, that
/ Bishop Talbot sent a copy of the let
| ter to DR.. Fulton last July and upon
| this criminal proceedings, it is said,
could be begun if the friends of DR.
Irvine found it was going to be impOs-
sible to get hearing before the court
of inquiry.
| DR.. Irvine's agents are busy delving
! into the record of several persons con-
| nected with the case and upon some of
/ the information thus obtained the pre-
| seniors may ask leave in secret session
to substitute an amended presentment.
! Every effort is being made by most Of
the churchmen to eliminate from the
| discussion Of the case any reference to
| Mrs. Elliott.
| DIR. IRVINE'S STATEMENT.
May a Bishop or ought a
| Bishop write defamatory letters
| in secret in order to injure any
| member of the ministry?" This