Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-12-28
Rt. Rev. EthMbert Talbot, d. D., LID.

Rt. Rev. Eth0lbert Talbot, D. D., LID.
and he also declined to give out the text of
the presentment. but his statement says
| that the presentment has its foundation in
| a letter said to have been written by Bishop
Talbot to Rev. Samuel Upjohn when the
latter was president of the Philadelphia
Catholic Club, in 1902.
/ The presentment is based on this let
| ter says Mr.. Noble. TT Is in the hand of
| Rev. w. B. Bodine, D. D., of Philadelphia.
1t charges Bishop Talbot with a criminal
| libel 'immorality-to wit, false statements
| the circulation Of false, malicious and
defamatory report, classifying, breach Of
ordination and conservation vows and con-
| duct unbecomtng bishop
Committee Of Twenty-Four.
| These charges, said Mr. Noble last night.
are the headings" of the allegations made
| in the presentment. He added that he had
| communicated with DIR. Bodine and would
| call on him Thursday or Friday In Phila-
| delphIa for a consultation as to the method
| of procedure in the hearing of the charges
| against Bishop Talbot in Reading, Pa, jan
uary TO- These charges will come before a
committee of investigation appointed by
| Presiding Bishop futile of st. Louis, this
| committee consisting of twelve clerical and
| twelve lay members, appointed from every
| diocese adjoining that Of central Pennsyl-
vania.
| days ago, and the investigation is direct
outcome of incidents relating to a case
which for some time has stirred the Epis-
copal Church. that of Rev. DR.. Ingraham
| w. N Irvine, now a resident of Philadel-
| phia, who was deposed from the ministry
| by Bishop Talbot several years ago. 1t is
made clear from the developments last
night that the names of several women will
| be brought into the case.
Referred to Other Bishops.
| The letter referred to in the case as the
letter to DR.. Upjohn is signed by Ethel
bert Talbot and charged DR.. Irvine with
immortality, and closed by referring to Bish-
ops Whitaker, Whitehead, Seymour, Scar
borough, Potter, Doane, Adams Taylor and
Rev. Dr. Leffingwell, land a host of others
who will bear out all I have said in regard
| to his character
| The statement issued last night denies
| that DR.. Irvine was deposed for immoral
! ity; denies that for twenty years he was
under the ban of ecclesiastical discipline,
and denies that he was ever suspended or
| inhibited as charged in this letter Re-
| ferring to statement in the letter that
| eight bishops had held charges against DIR.
| Irvine, Mr.. Noble says the presenters dis
| agree 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.
| Mr. Mobiles statement on behalf of the
| presenters closes as follows:
| This preSentment is not filed by DR.. 1r-
vine. Had he desired to serve personal ends
| the civil courts would have been opened to
| him. The presenters are actuated solely by
motives looking to the righting of what they
| believe to be terrible wrong"
| History Of Controversy.
| Ii is maintained in the accusations that
( Bishop Talbot conspired with Mrs. Emma
| o. Elliott Of Huntington, Pa, to injure the
| Rev. Mr.. Irvine; that he sent a defama-
tory letter making groundless charges of
| gross immortality against the clergyman
| and despatched a duplicate of the same
| message after interval of two years.
| This message known as the Upjohn let
| ter, furnishes the groundwork of the
| charges which the presenters brought to
the attention of the venerable head Of the
house of bishops, the Right Rev. DR.. Tut
| tie. They are still continuing their inves-
legations, and six detectives have been en-
| ployed to collect evidence.
| If the court of inquiry finds there is
enough evidence to warrant action those
| who are interested in the prosecution say
| one of the most sensational of church
| trials will be the result.
Cause Of the Scandal.
Briefly, the trouble between the bishop Of
| central Pennsylvania and the priest arose
from the communication of Mrs. Elliott,
| a member of the church at Huntington Of
| which Mr.. Irvine was the rector. Bishop
| Talbot had often been entertained at the
| Elliott house. Mr.. Irvine learning that
| Mrs. Elliott had obtained a divorce and
| had married Mr.. Elliott, who had also OBJ
| tanned divorce, presented the facts, but
not the names, to the bishop, who is said
| to have advised the clergyman to suspend
the woman mentioned alphabetically in the
| case. On learning of the identity of the
person the bishop Is alleged to have dis
| approved the action of the rector and to
| have ordered the reinstatement of Mrs
| Elliott Charges were made against the
| rector, and he was declared by the bishop
to be no longer priest
Noble Says Talbot Has Pursued Irvine.
II am willing" he said, Sin order that the
truth may be known, to give an outline Of
the facts Bishop Talbot has pursued DR..
Irvine relentlessly The supreme court Of
Pennsylvania said of Bishop Talbot and
Mrs Elliott, in a suit brought by the rec
tor for reinsta tement Undoubtedly de-
PENDANTS Bishop Talbot and Mrs. ElliotD
combined to prefer charges against Irvine
in the church court and acted In concert to
support the charges. This was not
unlawful. although their action was tine
tured with vindictiveness in some particu-
lars. They wanted him deposed from the
ministry. That they also hated him,
and by their course possibly gratifed less
| worthy motives than those which prompted
| a true Christian to action, is of no moment,
tAxcept In so far an 1t might have affected