Waterbury evening Democrat., 1904-12-29
IKvINE'S STATEMENT.
He Is Hot After Bishop Talbot of
 Philadelphia.

Philadelphia, Dec 29.-'Can d bish- op or ought bishop write defamatory letters in secret in order to injure any member of the ministry? This is the question which will be decided at the meeting of the board of inquiry in the case of Irvine ys Talbot, said the Rev Ingram N. W. Irvine. the plaintiff in the celebrated case, to-day, in discus sing the charges which have been made against him.
 My reinstatement" continued Ds Irvine, 'Fis of secondary consideration when contrasted with the above query. Of course, wish to have this unjust deposition removed, but I wish also, entirely without malice. to be yindi- cated in the sight of God and my friends"
 Dr Irvine said that the motive of the presentment was because he had persistently refused to serve conmun- ion to Mrs Emma D. Elliott of Hunt ingdon, Pa, who is divorced, againsl the wishes of Bishop Talbot.
 Bishop Talbot and l. along witS about 500 other members of the min istry," said Dr Irvine, signed the de. claration which was sent to all the bishops and clergy in the United States and presented to the general convention of 1898 and\which prayed for more stringent restrictions in the matter of divorce and re-marriage.
 saThe canons of the church provide explicitly that man or woman, di-l vorced on any charge, except that of adultery, which must be proven be. yond the bounds of reasonable doubt. cannot receive the holy sacrament. Tn the face of this Bishop Talbot, while ]. he publicly supported the petition, coyertly and by secret meetings with Mrs Elliott, who is woman divorced on the grounds of desertion, sought to have her remain in the church.
 Now, who was the more consistent Bishop Talbot or I ?y Did we not, both of us sign the petition mentioned. IS it not curious that Bishop Talbot. all though he had written me saying that Mrs Elliott was, by canon, exconmun ioated, should by other methods seek to retain her as communic 2
 Referring to the letter which s5ish- op Talbot is said to have written to Dr Upjohn, in which the former term ed Dr Irvine plausible Tomancer, ' had charged that he was deposed for gross immortality, and that for tWen- :, ty out of thirty years of his service in the ministry he was under ecclesiasti- cal discipline, Dr ITyine said that Bishop Talbot has placed himself in 8 most awkward position.
 That letter to Dr Upiohn was un- warranted and cruel" said pr Irvine, since it was first of all gross subter- ] fuge. It was used secretly as Weap- on against me, to deprive me of all sympathy, respect, and even mainten- ance.
 ] Tn the first place it is an utter im- possibility for these Allegations to be , true The church law requires that minister shall not be eligible to ad- mittance to another diocese when 1 leaving one, unless he bears the let ! ter demissary. This letter shows that ] the departing minister has clear rec , ord; that his life is beyond reproach, free from error in religion or vicious ness in life, and must be signed by the bishop. How could I, therefore, be guilty of the charges made against me
 Bishop Whitehead, of the diocese of, Pittsburg; Bishop Adams, of the diocese of Easton. Md, the last two dioceses in which served, as well as the bishops of all the dioceses in which I lived prior to this, have given me these letters which secured me the de, sired admission to ne wfields | Bishop Talbot has in his aIlega. tions indirectly accused his brother bishops of fraud upon the church in their issuance of these let ters to me. The bishops l whose names he quotes in his attack upon my character have been placed in position which reflects dis ! credit upon their regulations, or Bish- op Talbot's accusations are absolutely false-and I know that the word of these gentlemen cannot be im- pugned.'
 Dr Irvine said ill conclusion that he is not member of the Catholic club, nor has he ever made any accusations
 at the club or had words. with pr Up
 ioV,S1