The Saint Paul globe., 1904-12-28

hereby present and ailege that Bishop
Talbot is guilty ct immorai,ty tf,3i IN naylnS
letter regarding the Rev. Ingraham N. W.
Irvine, ID. D., and mailed or caused the
letter to be mailed to the Rev. DIR. Up
olic club. CA copy. of the letter follows:)
Specification 2. That Bishop Talbot Is
guilty of lying in having written: May /
therefore say. to you that the man was
immortality and for iewd and iascivious
conduct with women" For reference see
the proceedings of the ecclesiastical court
before which the Rev. DR.. Irvine was
tried, in which no record will be found
OF any such charges:
Specification 8. That Bishop Talbot is
guilty OF lying In having written that
Irvine for thirty years has been in the
years he has been under ecclesiastical
discipline. (Here papers from three bish-
ops. as well as letters and other docu-
ments, are given as refeTences.)
Specification 4. That Bishop Talbot is
guilty of lying in having written that he
1(lrvine) has, been suspended once, ad-
monished once in your diocese, and IN
hibited and made to leave repeatedly.
The charge of lying is set forth in spe-
cifications covering all but two of the re-
manning paragraphs of the letter. Fol-
lowing the paragraph reading: That all
his Irxine's)s talk about a divorced wom-
stored by me is baseless.
Bishop to Irvine
The presentment in support of the
charge of lying sets forth in the following
letter:
Diocese of Central Pennsylvania, Bishop
ric, South Bethlehem, Feb. 8, 1893
My Dear Irvine: The woman to whom
you refer is by canon excommunicated.
I cannot believe she will have the pre-
sumption to present herself at the holy
communion. If you think there IS any
danger of her doing so it would be better
for you in some kind and gentle way to
intimate to her her true condition. Of
course you have no discretion In the mat
ter. If she should present herself be-
fore you can speak to her, and you think
she does so in Ignorance, then you can
speak to her afterward; There IS no rea-
son in this case to make any row II the
thing is managed quietly and frmly with
a little common sense. l thank you LOT
what you say on this matter of the mis-
s'0''''' - @.Ethelbert Talbot"
The exceptions to the charge of lying are
as follows:
Specification-Tha Bishop Talbot is
guilty of conduct unbecomlng plSnop, OF
breach of his ordination and consecratlon
vows against involving other b1Shops IN
controversy by writing untruthfuily as
follows:
sThat eight bishops have grave charges
bishop of Quincy wrote me upon ms ms
deathbed that Irvine had outraged two
girls in his city, and Bishops Wnltaher,
Whitehead, Seymour, scarborough, FOt-
ter. Doane, Adams, Taylor and Rev. DIR.
u Ieftingwell and a host of others will bear
out all 1 have said as to his character
ssWherefore, the presenters, in view. or
the reasons as set forth in the above spec
ifications. do ask that Bishop Ialoot ,3e, pe
presented for trial before court OF his
DeerS.
Another letter introduced as an ex-
hibit in support of specification three, is
90 south south Bethlehem, Nov. 80, 1SsS.--My
Dear Irvine: What a nice time we all had
at Huntingdon. 1 did enjoy it. My dear
Ingraham you will, before many years,
take foremost place in my diocese. You
have the ability, and no one would rejoice
more than / to have it So My coroial re-
CARDS. please, to Mrs. Irvine and sister,
and especially to that lovely daughter ana
the granddaughter Thmk OF IT,. very, ny,
you and l are getting. old. Affectionately
yours, - Etheipert Iaipot'
Still More Sensational
The Times will say tomorrow that
among churchmenr who are familiar
with the case it is expected that the
hearing at Reading will not be the end
of the case. 1t is reported that several
detectives have been for some time
ferreting out another branch of the
case, which may be more sensational
than the present.
DR.. Irvine went to Huntingdon, Pa,
as a missionary in charge of the par
ish after Bishop Talbot was made
bishop of Central Pennsylvania. This
subsequently became st. PauPs parish,
one of the most powerful and rashlon-
able of the churches of the town.
Among the members of the church
there was one Mrs. Alexander Elliott.
DR.. Irvine found that Mrs. Elliott had
gotten a divorce from her third hus-
band, Mr.. Coolidge, of Philadelphia,
on the grounds of non-support Suf-
ficient ground under the laws of the
state, but not under canonical law.
Mr.. Elliott got divorce from his
wife on the ground of desertion, sufz
ficient ground under the state laws
once more, but again not sufficient un-
der the canonical law.
DR.. Irvine wrote a letter to Bishop
Talbot stating the case of the parties
as hypothetical. Bishop Talbot in re-
ply wrote that woman in this case
was " by canon excommuuicated."
With this authority DR.. Irvine in
formed Mrs. Elliott that hereafter she
could not partake of the holy COM
munion. Bishop Talbot was Informed
by the friends of Mrs. Elliot and order
ed her reinstatement. The matter
came before DR.. Irvine's church, which
decided to withdraw from their mis-
sion and become an independent
church.
This having been done, DR.. Irvine re-
fused to obey the orders of the bishop
to reinstate Mrs. Elliot to membership.
DR.. Irvine was accused then of having
forged a letter to Bishop Talbot, pur-
porting to have been signed with the
name of Mrs. Elliot. The charges
were dismissed by the court. Then
there followed ecclesiastical charges,
in which Dr. Irvine, before a tribunal
organized by Bishop Talbot and
whose findings he was to review, was
charged with immoral conduct and in
subordination in refusing to obey the
orders of his bishop. The charges of
immoral conduct were not sustained,
no testimony being introduced in their
support. Those of INSTRUMENTATION were
sustained, and under them Bishop Tai
bot imposed the severest sentence
possible under canon law, the deposit
ton of the offending clergyman.
DR.. Irvine appealed to the civil
courts from the decision on the ground
that the punishment was excessive in
view of the offense. The Pennsylvania
court decided that it could not review
the findings of an ecclesiastical court.
Lawyers and Presenters
PHILADELPHIA, Pa, Dec. 27.-The
presentment against Bishop Talbot was
sent to Herbert Noble, of New York,
an attorney and prominent layman OF
the church. Mr.. Noble appears on the
document as one of the presenters, OF
whom there are fourteen in ALL Asso-
ciated with him as presenters are John