The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1904-12-30
CHARGES AGAINST BISHOP TALL
BOT.

The Messenger yesterday contained a
charges against Bishop Talbot, of the
diocese Of Central Pennsylvania. This
matter was somewhat new to The
Messenger and it's readers. Therefore,
in order that our readers may get at
the beginning of what may turn out to
be a rather sensational church trial
we reproduce here the following dis
patch to the Raleigh Post, which will
give our readers some idea of the ORR
gin n nature of case, which will
probably agitate Episcopal church cir
cles for a while.
Mex York, December A.-The first
definite statement Of the charges made
against Episcopal Bishop Talbot CT
Central Pennsylvania was made today
by Herbert Noble, counsel for the pre-
scnterS.
1t is .ntimated, however that the
charges may be withdrawn altogether
n new charges be submitted to the
presiding bishop. Mr.. Noble said the
~presentment is based upon a letter writ
ten by Bishop Talbot to the Rev. ~.
Upjohn of Pennsylvania. The present.
ment charges Bishop Talbot with GRIM
nal libel and immortality, to wit:
False statements, c~ircUlauion of false,
malicious and defamatory reports and
of conduct unbecoming a bishop.
Mr.. Noble also CAV out a copy Of the
letter upon which the charge is based.
This letter has already been published
and says that the Rev Dr. Irvine was
deposed from his rectorship at Hunt
ington for gross immortality and for
lewd and lascivious conduct with
women.
The letter further says that eight
bishops had made grave charges
against Irvine and that the venerable
Bishop of Quincy had written to Tai
bot saying tina Irvine nad outraged
two girls in Quincy.
Mr.. Noble said this letter had been
written voluntarily by Bishop Talbo.
in 1902, some three years after the de-
posing of Irvine, but not content with
writing DR.. Upjohn, Bishop Talbot,
without any excuse, two years later, in
July, 1904, sent a cop Of this letter 10
the Rev. DR.. Fulton, a Philadelphia
rector, and one of the leading Episco-
pal church Papers. 1t was after send
ing a copy Of the letter to DR.. Fulton
that the presenters first learned of the
existence of the letter. 1t was felt by
them that the church should know that
n of the bishops, prompted by win
d~ictiveness and unchrStian-like mo-
tives, was still pursuing a man whom
this bishop a combined with a wom-
an (Mrs. Elliott Of Huntington, Pa.) to
decoSe.
MI. Noble said that the beginning of
the trouble was that DR.. Irvine fouId
according to canon law that Mrs. Ell
lott was living in adultery, she hav-
ing married after obtaining a divorce
from another husband on grounds other
than adultery. For this Irvine xcom-
munlcated her, the bishop having -ul-
ed that DR.. Irvine should thus proceed
without knowing who the person was,
because DR.. irvine had stated a hypo-
thetical case when he sought the bish-
BPS ruling. When the bishop found
out that it was Mrs. Elliott who was
accommodated he ordered DIR. IRVINE
to receive her back. DR.. Irvine refused
and his u~nfrocking followed.
! Mr.. Noble refused to tell who the
presenters were. 1t vas reported today
that h p~resenters have had Pinker-
ton and other detectives at work col
Iecting evidence against Bishop Talbot,
and il the evidence Is all collected by
January 10, when the board Of inquir y
meets in Reading, the presenters vii,
withdraw the present p-resentInent and
submit a n to the presiding
bishop.