New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-12-29
CHARGES NOT ALL TOLD.
HITCH IN TALBOT CASE.
Techmcality May Cause Delay of
Trial.

nv TELEGRAPH TO THE TRIBrHE.l
Philadelphia. Dec. 2S-An the men whose
names have been connected with the controversy
between the Rev. n w Irvine the unfrocked
rector, OF Huntingdon, Penn, and Bishop Ethel
bert Talbot, of the Central Pennsylvania Diocese
OF the Protestant Episcopal Church. against
whom charges have again been preferred, refuse
to throw any light the case until they are
called upon testify before the Board of Inquiry.
which is TO meet in Reading January 10. The
Rev. ". j. Bodine, who has been made custodian
Of the papers in the case until the board meets,
received the presentment against Bishop Talbot
yesterday. When asked if he would give the
names of the signers. he said that. inasuuch as
Herbert Noble. New-York lawyer representing
the presenter. had refused to give the names, he
did not feel that he was at liberty to do SO.
Have all the points III the presentment
against Bishop Talbot been made pubnc?" he
asked
No he replied. The paper is a long one
several typewriter pages. I don't know how
many. There are great many charges, but
don't know how many.
Il want TO explain that the Rev. Morgan
Dix did not resign from the board OF inquiry.
He simply stated that uncertain health would
prevent him from attending the meetings of
the board. There are sixteen members Of the
board and it will require the presence of nine
TO make quorum. So far l know there will
be a quorum present but if there is not. will
have to adjourn without taking any action.
The meeting at Reading will not he a trial, 1t
will be the duty of the board take testimony
and report 10 the Board of Bishops whether
think there is sufficient foundation for the
charges against Bishop Talbot to warrant
trial before the Court of Bishops"
The Rev John Fulton, who is said to have re-
ceived a copy of the letter sent by Bishop Talbot
To he Ra,- T,rI-o
Germantown. on which the charges against
Bishop Talbot based. refused to tell what
he knows about the
Il know what you want he said but I am
not going to tell you. ] suppose / will have TO
talk when the time comes but don't intend to
say anything nov. l did receive copy OF
letter and u letter describing the original. but
they did not tally. and l don't know whether l
have copy of the original not. I have not
looked at it since l received it last July"
Who sent you the copy of the letter.? he
was asked
Mr., Irvine will tell you who sent it to me"
he replied He knows; do some Of the other
people that side"
There will he no hearing Of the charges against
Bishop Ethelhert Talbot. Of the Diocese of Cen
trail Pennsylvania. by the court recently ap-
pointed by Bishop TUttIe, is the statement made
by Churchmen who we'll posted in the
canonical laws Of the Episcopal Church, COM
plication has developed which they say VIII put
q stop effectualy TO the proceedings Of the court
Of inquiry constituted.
The trouble comes from a recent change in the
CanOns Of the Church regarding the appointment
Of a court of that nature. The first intimauon
Of the trouble comes in the shape of an editorial
in The Church Standard" the Oldest organ of
the Church in this country. In the issue ~
The Standard which viii appear tomorrow
the Rev. DR. John Fulton, the editor, says in
reference TO lrF1n5- alt0t case Sn5t Tie
Presiding Bishop has constituted the board of
inquiry under a canon which was superseded by
new canon Of the late general convention.
The board of inquiry Is called TO meet on Janu-
airy 10. and when II does meet on that date it
viii not be constituted the canon
quires It Will therefore, have power to pro-
ceed with the inquiry for which it is called.
The Rev. Or. Bodine, who will be chairman of
the committe on inquiry, in an interview to-
night considers important the conclusions of DR..
Fulton. DR.. Bodine explained that under the
canon which expires on January l, 4 court of
inquiry Is composed of sixteen members. The
new canon provides for a court, hoard. con-
sisting of only members. These must be
appointed by certain Bishops. designated by the
canon.
AS the new canon is not yet in force, no court
can be chosen under its provisions. and one
chosen now tc comply with il would. II is
claimed. have 10 legal existence now or at any
the only course left is to let the present
court rreat on the date named 1t then de-
eide that II no longer has jurisdiction in the
case and refer it back 10 Bishop Tuttle for
further action.
The mistake or oversight arose, it is said. be-
cause the movement TO procure a presentment
against Bishop Talbot was begun last August.
and those who had it in hand failed to take
cOgllizancP Of the change in the canOniCal law
whom il was mode 7t The last general COnyen-
tion.