Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-12-30
DECLARED AN OUTRAGE
sIGNERS OF PREsENTMENT IN
IRVINE CASE REPUDIATE IT.
Explanations of Some of the Men Who
Signed Paper for Reopen
ing the Matter.

Dispatches from Huntingdon, Pa. last
night state that some of the Huntingdon
signers to the presentment against Bishop
Talbot in the Irvine case have repudiated
the presentment, and say that it was never
their intention to sign paper of the char
acter that has appeared in the press. If
this be true, The proceedings must be
dropped, as a presentment of the character
made against the bishop must contain the
names of at least three persons from the
diocese in which the accused bishop lives.
1t is said the paper was signed by the
Huntingdon men under a misapprehension,
they believing that they were assisting in
closing long controversy. and not one in
which their bishop was to be brought to
trial.
When ]. Frederick Jenkinson was told
OF the information received from Hunt
lngdon tonight he said that the names of
the Huntingdon men were signed at the
end of the original presentment. The names
or the Philadelphia signers he said, were
on the same sheet upon which the names
of the Huntingdon presenters appear. He
added that he has personal letter from
one of the sgners, in which he says he was
pleased to attach his name to the docu-
ment.
Matter Was Misrepresented.
A dispatch from Huntingdon last night
night quotes John Langdon, one of the
signers, as follows:
Il did not know until this morning that
my name was connected with the charges
1t is an outrage, for 1 did not know any
thing about the matter, except what I
neard- have never read the preSentment
and could not tell one of the charges or
specifications
The matter was entirely misrepresented
TO me. 1t Is true that l signed paper
put that was communication to Bishop
Iuttle, signed by all the veStrymen. asking
that the controversy between Bishop Tai
bot and DR.. Irvine be stilied for ali time
The communication contained about twenty
words. 1t was brought to me by w. G.
others had signed it, 1 did.
One Signed Blank Sheet.
Mr.. Miller also gave me blank sheet
to sign, saying he wanted to make the let
ter out in duplicate. What was done with
that blank sheet don't know. Mr.. Miller
was always very friendly with DR.. Irvine,
and so was James Denithorne, another
signer- 1 can't say positively, however,
that they had anw communication with Dr.
irvine on this subject. Still, I can't I'M
oerstand why my name is attached to the
presentment.
have absolutely nothing against Bishop
Talbot, and if he We're to come here To-
morrow l would entertain him as I have
before 1 am not defending either man.
Both men have friends but there is a
very strong feeling against Or Irvine We
think he should have left here when told
to in the first place. Then he would not
have been unfrocked and this scanda!
would have been averted." .,,ri,-
Paper Looked Like Ordinary Petition.
A. 7. Jackson, another signer, said:
NO, we did not sign the presentment;
not one of us. We were asked to sign a
letter to Bishop futile, asking him to set
tie the case as soon as possible
1.-The letter was very short, and, in fact,
was like petition. 1t began: we, the I'M
dersigned. male communicates of St Johns
Church, ask you to settle the controversy
between Bishop Talbot and the Rev. DR..
Ingram N. w. Irvine as speedily as pos
sible.' We signed a blank sheet of paper
that was supposed to be duplicate
When reporter called at the home of
James Denithorne, his wife answered the
summons.
You can't see Mr.. Denithorne," she said.
He has nothing to say"
Did he sign the presentiment?,
mo, he did not He signed a paper of
some kind. but not that"
M. s. jackson and w. r. Hitler could
not be found Friends declared that they
had not signed the presentment.