New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-12-27
CHURCH WILL Thy BISHOP
Old Charges Against DR.. Talbot by
I. n. ". Irvine ReUiUed.

Philadelphia Dec 26-It is now understood here
that the board Of inquiry which Is to cit In Read
ing January 16 to hear the charges brought
against Bishop Ethelbert Talbot OF the diocese Of
Central Pennsylvania by I. y. ". Irvine. who
WAS unfrocked by the Bishop Will consist OF the
Rev. Dr. Morgan Dix and the Rev. DR.. II. p
Nichols OF New-York; the Rev Dr. Henry l. Jones'
of Wlkesbarre; the Rev DR.. Rogers Israel, OF
Scranton; the Rev. DR.. Joseph Carey. Of Saratoga
Springs. n. Y; the Rev. DR. E. A. Enos. Of Troy
N Y. and the Rev. DR.. W. B. Bodine and the Rev
John E. Harley. of this city; lay members. Francis
Lynde Stetson, Henry L. Norris William 3. Butler
J. NJ Lamberton. George P. Reese, Francis N
Mann, William w. Frasier and George c. Thomas.
Bishop Daniel D. futile, VINO. senior bishop
OF the Protestant Episcopal Church In America
viii have deal with the case. is in st. Louis
He is quoted to-day as saying that in case the
board finds the charges against Bishop Talbot
grdundless the Bishop Will not be further molested
but that II they seem well founded DR.. Talbot will
be placed on trial before jury OF eleven bishops
DR.. Talbot has refused so far to discuss this new
phase Of the long-standng controversy with Mr.
Irvine. whom he deposed. The presentment was
fled before Bishop Tuttle two weeks ago. and he
appointed the board of inquiry. 'Libellous fasinc-
cation" is the way in which the charges are sum-
married. by Bishop futile. The presentment was
sent the Rev Dr. Morgan Dix. Henry Budd
chancellor Of the diocese OF Pennsylvania. said
day:
The charges made against Bishop Talbot ere Of a
serious personal nature but I must decline to go
into details.
The Irvne-Talbot case had its beginning when
IN 1899. the Rev. DR.. Irvine. then in charge Of ST.
Pauls Church at Huntingdon. in Bishop Tabot's
diocese, wrote TO ask instructions regarding the
standing in the church OF Mrs. Alexander Elliott
who, twice divorced, had become the wife of Mr.
Elliott, who had obtained a divorce from his first
wife on the charge that she had deserted him.
The Bishop advised DR.. Irvine that Mrs Elliott
was communicated but later receded from this
ruling In the prolonged dispute that followed
charges OF bad faith and unclerical conduct were
exchanged
One Of the most sensational exhibits In the case
a letter from the 3 saoD 70 Mrs. Elliott in
which after declaring his inability TO prosecute
on morals, he advised her to prosecute him /
have him convicted in a court OF ord. "And
then" the letter read. Il will ulfrock the Shiny
Eel ow"
Mrs Elicit subsequently charged Dr. Irvine with
forging her name to a letter A though acquitted
of the charge in a secular court his res. gnation
was demanded by the Bi hop. who when II was
refused. prs pared e-cesiasfi al trial that re-
suited in the deposition OF Dr. Irvine
Bishop Talbot, after series of sensational
charges and counterchargss had culrninatsd IN a
trial in Harrisburg July and g. 1902 was
cleared by q 5 10 vote Of nine members of a
board Of sixteen drawn to sit by order OF Bishop
Clark then Prina G.
The new presentement is based on a letter written
by Bishop Talbot TO the Rev. Samuel Upjohn, OF
this city This letter, accord NJ to William S.
Price, former chancellor OF the Diocese of Penn
sylvania was only unjust in its charges against
Irvine but ISnjustihably involved as alleged wit
nesses to the truth OF the charges the names OF
eight prominent churchmen Including Bishop
Whitaker. Bishop Potter, Bishop scarborough
Bishop Doane and Bishop Whitehead