Milford chronicle., 1904-12-30
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,
the presenters in the
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 DR.. Irvine is
not one, and he also declined to give f.
out the text of the presentment, but
his statement says that the present. /
ment has it's foundation in a letter 1
said to have been written by Bishop
Talbot to Rev Samuel Up'~ IN, when
the latter was president ne Phila-
delphia Catholic Club 1902.
"The presentmer' based on this
letter" says Mr. ole. 1T is in the
hands of the T '. W. B. Bodine, D. D.,
of Philade 5 d. It charges Bishop
Talr W. :. criminal libel I'M
MOI .ity. to wit, false statements;
the circulating Of a false. malicious
and defamatory report "falsifying,
breach of ordination and conservation
VOWS and conduct unbeeoming 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 a committee of investigation ap-
pointed by Presiding Bishop Tuttle, Of
St. Louis, this committee consisting of
II clerical and u 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
a 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 oi
to Rev. Dr. Samuel Upjohn, and twf
years after its date sent copy of thi!
letter to Rev. DR.. John Fulton.
at was after the sending Of the copy
of the letter to DR.. Fulton in July
/ 1904" the statement goes on, 'tha
| the presenters first learned of the ex
istence of such a letter. 1t was felt b.
them that the church generally shoul'
know the circumstance Of the case
particularly because of the fact tha
Bishop Talbot was to sit as the fina
Judge to pass on the evidence whicl
was produced at the trial"
The letter referred to as the lette
to DR.. Upjohn is signed by "Ethelber
Talbot" and charged DR.. Irvine wit
immortality, and closed by referring t
Bishops Whitaker, Whitehead, Sey
mour. Scarborough, Potter, Doan'
Adams, Taylor and Rev. Dr. Leihne
well "and a host of others who wi
bear out all have said in regard
his character"
The statement issued denies that D
Irvine was deposed for immoralit!
denies that for 20 years he was unde
the ban of ecclesiastical discipline, an
denies that he was ever suspended c
inhibited as charged in this letter, RI
ferring to a statement in the lette
that eight bishops held charges again!
Dr. Irvine, Mr.. Noble says the pre-
senters disagree with this, and ado
that DR. Irvine denies that Bisho
Burgess ever made a charge of an
kind against him, as alleged accordin
to a copy of the Upjohn letter.