Democratic messenger. [volume] (Snow Hill, Md.) 1869-1973, 1904-12-31
CHARGES AGAINST
BISHOP TALBOT
New York Lawyer Outlines What
Presenters Will Take Up
BASED ON LETTER OF 1902

New York, Dec. 2S.-In a statement,
Herbert Noble, a lawyer of this city,
representing the presenters in the
sharSes recently made against Bishop
Talbot, of the central diocese of the
Episcopal church in Pennsylvania,
briefly outlined what those who will
appear against the bishop will take
up. The presenters Mr. Noble will not
name, except to say that DIR. Irvine is
not one, and he also declined to give
out the text of the presentment, but
his statement says that the present.
ment has its foundation in letter
said to have been written by Bishop
Talbot TO Rev. Samuel Upjohn. when
the latter was president of the Phila-
delphia Catholic Club in 1902.
THE presentment is based on this
letter." says Mr. Noble 1T is in the
hands of the Dev. w. b. Bodine, ID. d.,
of Philadelphia. 1t charges Bishop
Talbot with "a criminal libel i'm
morality. to wit, false statements
the circulating of a false. malicious
and defamatory report; ''falsifying,'
breach of ordination and conservation
vows and conduct unbecoming a
bishop"
These charges. said Mr. Noble are
the headings" of the allegations made
in the presentment. He added that he
had communicated with DR. Bodine,
and would call on him tomorrow or
Friday in Philadelphia for a consulta-
tion as to the method of procedure in
the hearing of the charges against
Bishop Talbot in Reading. Pa, jan
uary 10. These charges will come be-
fore committee of investigation ap-
pointed by Presiding Bishop Tuttle, of
st. Louis, this committee consisting of
II clerical and II lay members, ap-
pointed from three dioceses adjoining
that of Central Pennsylvania.
This committee was appointed about
10 days ago. and the investigation is
a direct outcome of incidents relating
to a case which for some time have
stirred the Episcopal church. that of
Rev. Dr. Ingraham w. n. Irvine. now
resident of Philadelphia, who was
deposed from the ministry by Bishop
Talbot several years ago.
Continuing. Mr. Noble says in his
statement that having deposed Irvine
from Office. this bishop wrote on jan
uary 25, 1902, the letter complained of
to Rev. DR.. Samuel Upjohn. and two
years after its date sent a copy of this
letter to Rev. DR.. John Fulton
1T was after the sending of the copy
of the letter to DR.. Fulton in July,
1904" the statement goes on. that
the presenters first learned of the ex-
istence of such letter. 1t was felt by
them that the church generally should
know the circumstance of the case,
particularly because of the fact that
Bishop Talbot was to sit as the final
judge to pass on the evidence which
was produced at the trial."
The letter referred TO as the letter
to DR.. Upjohn is signed by Ethelbert
Talbot" and charged Dr. Irvine with
immortality, and closed by referring to
mour. Scarborough, Potter. Doane
Adams. Taylor and I.ev. Dr. LefhnS-
well ''and n host of others who will
bear out all have said in regard to
his character"
The statement issued denies that Dr.
Irvine was deposed for immortality,
denies that for 90 years he was under
the ban of ecclesiastical discipline. and
denies that he was ever suspended or
inhibited as charged in this letter. Re-
.erring TO statement in the letter
that eight bishops held charges against
DR.. Irvine. Mr.. Noble says the pre-
senters disagree with this, and adds
that Dr. Irvine denies that Bishop
Burgess ever made a charge of any
kind against him. as alleged according
to copy of the Upjohn letter.