The San Francisco call., 1904-12-27
Dr.. Irvine. Talks Of
His Strife With
Bishop.
Explains Why He Was Dis
Ciplined and Dropped
From Ministry.
Claims He Was Made a SClpeSOat to
Appease Divorced Couples
Wrath.
Special Dispatch to The Call.


PHILADELPHIA, Dec 2S.-Rev. Dr.
Ingraham N. W. Irvine whose friends
have lodged a new presentment against
Episcopal Bishop Talbot of the Central
Pennsylvania Diocese, who unfrocked
the former rector, consented to-day to
tell of his old disappointments and new
hopes.
Il am only willing to speak in a gen
eral way of the features of the case"
said DR.. Irvine, as the new present
ment is entirely in charge of my friends
and 1 will not interfere with their plans
by talking about it. There are some
points at issue, however, upon which
feel free to speak.
I'm the first place I wish it could be
made plain that this presentment is
not an attack by me upon Bishop Tai
bot. but that it is prosecution brought
by the church to inquire into actions
which bring the church into discredit.
If 1 should die tonight the present
ment would go on just as we'll with me
dead as alive. Bishop Talbot and
were always good friends until trouble
arose over Mrs Elliott while was
rector at Huntington"
did Bishop Talbot visit Mrs Elliott
frequently?p DR.. Irvine was asked
He did, and they appeared to be
close friends" was the reply. Why,
you know purple is a Bishops color
and Mrs Elliott used to wear purple
when the Bishop came to town."
HIS VIEW OF MRS. ELLIOTT.
rs she handsome woman"
mo, not in my eyes. Beauty, how
ever, is matter which apparently each
man sees with his own eyes and l sup
pose men will never cease wondering
what some other man sees to admire in
some woman who may have been a
mutual friend
rs Mrs. Elliott a social leader Of
Huntington"
mo, don't think she would be called
that. She has many influential friends,
however. and has plenty of money, but
there are several women 1 should say
are more widely known and popular
throughout the town.
1T is reported that the presentment
is based largely upon a letter written
to Rev. Mr.. UpjChn and that no word
of the latter has yet been made public
II believe that is correct. Several
bishops were referred to in that letter,
most of whom have repudiated the use
of their names as references against
me-
STRONG LETTER TO BISHOP.
When the wording of that letter be-
comes public the church will be sur
/ IN oho x.ri%1, oil
sorts of things and some of the refer
| ences will cause a sensation. Things
have so far been smothered. Bishop
Talbot at one time himself asked for
ar inquiry after the first committee. by
close vote, had failed to present him,
but he afterward withdrew his request.
About year after I had been de-
posed l wrote to Bishop Talbot, ask
ing for reinstatement. Part of the let
| ter read: You must certainly remem-
Der that did my duty in reporting the
Elliott divorce matter to you. You GER
tainly communicated her, as the re-
ceipts show. You wanted me to COM
promise the case with her afterward. l
| could not do so. There was nothing for
me to do but stand my ground, under
fire from her. Both Mrs. Elliott and
her husband had been divorced. Mr..
Elliott's crime was a very grievous
one. Alas, how could either you or !
have compromised? Don't you remem-
Der our signatures were given to me-
mortal to the general convention
against marrying divorced persons un-
der any circumstances? Then why
should l have been made a scapegoat to
appease an enraged divorced couples
wrath?'"