Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-12-28
their credibility as /. witnesses before the
court which tried him j
Woman's Previous Marriage.

court which tried him ]
Woman's Previous Marriage.
"This case went OF because the civil
courts could not review'othe action of an
ecclesiastical court
Mrs. Elliott had BEEN pronounced by
Bishop Talbot communicated because she
had married after having obtained d.
vorce from her husband lon grounds other
than the statutory tsne 10 New York. She
was therefore undeEicanon law not lawfully
married to her present husband. and the
bishop had pronounced hher excommuni-
Gated. oS III
Although, therefore, this case went off
for want of jurisdiction the public may
understand the gravity of the situation
says that this bishop of1the church com
bined with Mrs. Elliott to prefer charges
against Irvine, and that he (the bishop and
Mrs. Elliott were prompted in their course
py nate ana other unworthy motives.
Letters Started Action.
Not content with having deposed Irvine
from his sacred Office, this bishop, who,
as the court says, hated him. and without
In any way being called upon to say any
thing about DR.. irvine, voluntarily wrote,
on January %. 1902, the letter complained
of to the Rev. DR.. Samuel Upjohn.
Still not content, Bishop Talbot without
cause Seflt d COpS VI tnlS letter 10 TIE rev.
Dr. John Fulton two years after it's date.
ut was after the sending of the copy of
the letter to DR.. Fulton in July. 1904, that
the presenters first learned of the existence
of such letter. 1t was felt by them that
the church generally should know that one
of its bishops prompted by hate and vim
dictiveness and unchristianlike motives,
was stil pursuing man whom this bishop
had combined with Mrs. Elliott to depose.
To properly understand the enormity of the
n ha Of n
sylvania that Bishop Talbot and Mrs Ell
lott combined to prefer charges against
Irvine it must be borne in mind that
Bishop Talbot was to sit as the final judge
to pass on the evidence which was produc-
ed at the trial result of his combina-
ton with Mrs. Elliott. They wanted him
deposed from the ministry. They
also hated him and by their course possibly
gratifed less worthy motives than those
which prompt true Christian to action,
was said by the supreme court of Penn
sylvania
Doctor Irvine's Statement.
DR.. Irvine said yesterday to reporter in
Philadelphia:
'In view Of the publicity 1 gave to my
efforts to obtain an annulment of my depo-
sition by Bishop Talbot, my refusal to talk
regarding the new presentment of him is
doubtless mystifying, but ought to be ex-
planned entirely by my own declaration
that l am merely lay figure in the pro-
ceedngs. / mean that l simply happen to
be concerned to the extent that letter re-
ferring to me forms the basis of the pre-
sentiment. Those who have made 1t had
acted in the same manner and with the
same purpose had that letter been written
with reference to any other man, clerical
or lay, under the same circumstances, and
had it reached their knowledge by the same
process. More than this 1 may not say.
What / know of the entire matter was
given me in confidence l will not violate.
l may say no more than to repeat what
Chancellor Budd told the Public Ledger
yesterday-that nothing having to do with
the Harrisburg inquiry of Bishop Talbot is
involved in the new presentment, which is
animated by the interests of the Protestant
Episcopal Church, and not by regard for
my vindicatiOn"
Doctor Upjohn Issues Card.
DR.. Upjohn sent the following letter to
the Philadelphia Public Ledger yesterday:
From your statement Of the Irvine case
in today's Public Ledger, referring to
letter written to me as the basis of the
presentment against Bishop Talbot 1t
might be inferred that, either individually
or as president of the Catholic Club, and
acting for it, had furnished this informa-
ton for the purpose for which 1t has been
used
Il wish to say here with utmost explicit
ness that, neither individually nor in my
capacity president of the Catholic club,
did I furnish a letter for this purpose. L
wish further to state, with equal explicit
ness that the use to which this letter has
been put has been without my knowledge
or consent and It's being SO used can only
be considered under the circumstances, as
an act of the highest degree unwarrantable
and discourteous. / beg you Will give
prominence to this letter equal to that
which you have given to your statement
Of today. SAMUEL UPJOHN.
Germantown, December 26, 1904
The Ri. Rev DR.. Talbot telegraphed
from South Bethlehem that he had no
statement to make to the press
Bishop Potter DISTINGUISHED.
Bishop Potter, in conversation last night
in New York, was asked if there was any
warrant for the statement made in the
Upiohn letter in which the bishops name
was brought in In this letter 1t was
stated that the bishop would bear out all
that DR.. Talbot had TO say. In reply Bish-
op Potter said:
II have not communicated with Bishop
Talbot and have no knowledge OF such a
fact 1t would be highly improper, how
ever. for me to say anything about the
case which is now in the nature of ju-
dicial proceeding.
But you are not personally interested
In the case, are you?' was asked
Not a bit; not Bit Bishop Potter
FASTENED to reply
Among churchmen who are familiar with
the case it is said that the hearing at
Reading will not be the end of the case.
1t is reported that several detectives nave
been engaged for some time working out
another branch of the case, which may be
more sensational than the present.