Los Angeles herald., 1905-01-10
WOMAN BACK OF
TALBOT SCANDAL
DIVORCED CHURCH MEMBER
CAUSED TROUBLE
Story Of Long Controversy, in Which
Episcopal Bishop and a cler-
gyman Are ln-
Voved

From the Philadelphia North American.
The history of the Talbot-Irvine
Elliott scandal in the Protestant Epis-
copal church is a long and involved
one.
1t began in January, 1899, and has
waged almost incessantly since then,
involving one criminal proceeding, one
civil suit and several ecclesiastical
proceedings of an inquisltorial and
judicial character
1t has engaged the attention of three
general conventions of the church.
and has now started another intricate
series of processes.
Bishop Talbot and DIR. Irvine had
known each other for thirty years, and
their relations were friendly, they hav-
ing been classmates in the General
Theological Seminary in New York.
In notifying the wardens of st.
Johns church, Huntingdon. Pa, Aug
ust %, 1898, that he had appointed DR..
Irvine as missionary in charge of the
parish, the bishop used this language
concerning him:
You will like the doctor, and he will
interest your people and inspire hope
and confidence in the work"
Start of Controversy
Everything went we'll until January,
1899. At that time Dr. Irvine's atten.
tion was called to some passages, past
and present, in the life woman prom
inent in the parish, communicate of
the church, but who had not presented
letters of transfer from her last par
ish.
These passages were, as regards the
past, divorce from two husbands in
succession, as she alleged, for causes
allowed by the church, and for the
present, her living as his wife with a
man to whom she had been married
after he had procured a divorce from
his wife, then living, simply on the
ground of desertion.
Ordered Rector to Resign
On or about February 8, 1899, Bishop
Talbot wrote to DR.. Irvine that Mrs.
Elliott's case as represented to him
by her made her the innocent party
in a case of divorce, and that he
wanted him to call on Mrs. Elliott and
make up with her, ETC.; this state
ment on the part of Bishop Talbot
completely ignoring the fact that even
though Mrs. Elliott had been the in
nocent party in two previous divorces
for criminal cause, the, graNamen of
the charge consisted in the fact that
she was married at that time to
man whose wife was still living, and
from whom he had been divorced sim
ply on the ground of desertion.
DR.. Irvine absolutely refused to COM
promise the matter and restore Mrs.
Elliott to the communion.
On or about February II, 1899, Bish-
op Talbot suddenly wrote to DR.. Ir-
vine to Immediately resign and leave
Huntingdon at once, as he did not
want to discuss the matter any more
with him. DIR. Irvine replied showing
the impossiblity of his immediate de-
parture, as there was much sickness
in his home. He also said that there
was no disturbance in his parish ex-
cept such as Mrs. Elliott was trying
TO work up, and that he had no con-
f1ict with the vestry.
The bishop was obdurate. The yes
try appealed to him. but he would not
listen to them. Dr. Irvine thereupon
resigned his APRON -ment as mission
airy in charge of the parish receiving
missionary aid.
Parish Stood by Irvine
About February H. 1899, there ap-
peared floating around the parish
typewriter letter of Bishop Talbot to
Mrs. Emma d. Elliott, in which the
bishop stated what even the vestry
had not as yet known-that he had
ordered Dr. Irvine to leave Hunting
don week ago; that it was not true
that he had communicated Mrs. Ell
liott; that DR.. Irvine stated what was
not true if he had said so, and that
DR.. Irvine was acting out of spite to
her (Mrs. Elliot) and not to pay any
attention to him.
The parish being vacant, the vestry
wrote to the bishop to appoint any
place he desired, so that they might
confer with him. They telegraphed
to the bishop and took every possible
step to meet him, but as their efforts
We're unavailing, they met as a vestry,
relinquished the missionary aid they
had heen receiVinp fell boclx IN tbair