The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1904-12-29
BIC CHURCH ROW.
Charges of All Sorts of Wrong
Doing Are Made.
Against Bishop Talbot OF the
Episcopal Church.
WOMAN In THE CASE.
Also q Former Preacher in the
Accused's Diocese.
Trial Promises to Be One of
Next Months Sensations.

representing the presenters in the
charges 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 DR.. Irvine is not one, and
he also declines to give out the text
of the presentment, but his statement
says that the presentment has its
foundation in letter said to have been
written by Bishop Talbot to Rev. Sam
uel Upjohn, when the latter was presi-
dent of the Philadelphia Catholic club
in 1902
1.-The presentment is based on this
letter." says Mr.. Noble. 1T is in the
hands of Rev. w. B. Bodine, D. D., of
Philadelphia. 1t charges Bishop Tai
bot with "a crir- nal libel; immortality
towit: false ST -ementS;' the circula-
ton of false, malicious and defamatory
report 'falsifying;' breach of ordina-
ton and conservation vows and con-
duct 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 Mr.. Bodine
and would call on him in Philadelphia
for consultation as to the method of
procedure in the hearing of the charges
against Bishop Talbot in Reading, Pa,
in January. These charges will come
before a committee Of investigation ap-
pointed by President Bishop Tuttle, of
ST. Louis, this committee consisting of
IL clericals and IL laymen appointed
from three dioceSeS adjoining that OF
central Pennsylvania.
This committee was appointed about
ten days ago and the investigation is
a direct outcome of incidents relating
to a case which for some time has
oh 11S<I1 hot Of
Rev. DR.. Ingraham w. N. Irvine, now
a resident of Philadelphia, who was de-
posed from the ministry by Bishop
Talbot several years ago. 1t is made
names of several women will be
brought into the case.
The statement made by Mr.. Noble
recites that Bishop Talbot has pursued
DR.. Irvine relentlessly, and then, quotes
from a decision of the supreme court
of Pennsylvania in suit brought by
DR.. Irvine against Bishop Talbot and
Mrs. Elliott, the latter of Huntingdon,
Pa, to this effect:
Undoubtedly defendants combined
to prefer charges against Irvine in the
church court and acted to support the
charges They wanted him deposed
from the ministry. That they also hat
ed him and by their course possibly
gratified less worthy motives than
those which prompt true Christian to
action is of no moment, except insofar
as it might have affected their credi-
bility as witnesses before the court
which tried him.
Mr.. Noble says this case went off
for lack of jurisdiction. He then says
Mrs. Elliott had been pronounced lex
communicate" by Bishop Talbot ''be-
cause she married after having obtain
ed a divorce from her husband on
grounds other than adultery"
Continuing, MI. Noble says in his
statement that. having deposed Irvine
from office, this bishop wrote, on Jan
uary %, 1902, the letter complained of
to Rev. DR.. Samuel Uptohn; and two
years after it's date sent a copy of this
letter to the Rev. John Fulton.
1t was after the sending of the letter
to Dr. Fulton in July, 1904, the state
ment goes on, that the presenters first
learned of the existence of such let
ter. 1t was felt by them that the
church generally should know the cir
cumstances of the case, particularly be-
cause 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 to Upjohn.
The letter referred to as the letter to
DR.. Upjohn is signed by ''Ethelbert
Talbot" and charges DR.. Irvine with
and closes by referring to
Bishops Whitaker, Whitehead, Seymour,
Potter, Doane, Adams,
Taylor and Rev. DR.. Leffingwell, and
a. host of others who will bear out all
1 have said in regard to his charac-
ter
The statement issued denies that DR..
Irvine was deposed for immortality, de-
MES that for twenty years he was I'M
der the band of ecclesiastical discipline,
and denies that he was ever suspended
or inhibited as charged in this letter
Referring to a statement in the letter
that eight bishops had held charges
against DIR. Irvine, Mr.. Noble says the
presenters disagree with this, and ADDS
that Dr. Irvine denies that Bishop Bur
CESS ever made a charge of any KIND
against him, as alleged according TO a
copy of the Upjohn letter.
Mr.. Mobiles statement on behalf OF
the presenters closes as follows:
ssThis presentment is not filed by Dr.
Irvine. Had he desired to serve per-
sonal ends, the civil courts would nave
been open to him. The presenters are
actuated solely by motives looking TO
the Fighting of what they pelleNe 10 pe
Bishop Potter was asked if there
was any warrant for the statement
made in the Upjohn letter in when
the bishops name was brought: III
this letter it was stated the bishop
would bear out all that DR.. Talbot had
to say. In reply Bishop Potter said;
ST have not communicated with
Bishop Talbot and have no knowledge
of such a fact. 1t would be highly
imnroper. however, for me to say any
thing about the case, which is now in
the nature of a judicial proceeding.
"Fut YOU are not personally inter-
ested in the case, are you?" was
asked.
mot bit, not a Bit Bishop Potter
FASTENED to reply,
The Times says:
"Among churchmen who are familiar
with the case, it is expected the hear
ing at Reading will not be the end of
the case.
"Tt is reported several detectives
have been engaged for some time fer
reting out another branch of the case
which may be more sensational than
the present.
DR.. Irvine went to Huntingdon, Pa,