Omaha daily bee., 1905-12-03

bert Talbot, d. D., LII. D., bishop of the
Protestant Episcopal church, in the diocese
of central Pennsylvania.
The two men had known each other as
students in the General Theological semi
nary, New York, and the friendship OF Tai
bot for his brother in the cloth had been so
pronounced that August % 1895 in sending
him TO the parish of ST. Johns church.
Huntington. Pa, he went out of his way
TO pay him high compliments and to ex-
press the opinion that the members of his
new congregation would like him.
At the beginning OF DIR. Irvine's work in
the parish he was popular, and until 1899
there was no hint against him.
At that time the attention of DR.. Irvine
was directed to some passages in the life
Of one of his parshioners. a wealthy
woman, Mrs. Emma p. Elliott, who, Il
was stated. had been divorced from two
husbands for causes recognized by the
church as adequate, but was now the wife
of another man, who, in turn, had a wife
living from who he had been divorced on
grounds of desertion.
Wishing to avoid interference in matter
so delicate DR.. Irvine submitted the entire
matter to Bishop Talbot who. after going
over the papers, ruled that Mrs. Elliott
Gated, and instructed DR.. Irvine tn deny
her communion should she present her
self with the intention of partaking Of It.
This DR.. Irvine did, with the result thai
he so incensed Mrs. Elliott that she wrote
20 the bishop making serious charges
against the character of Dr. Irvine.
The bishop then wrote to Dr. Irvine a
second letter In which he said that after
taking up the matter more thoroughly he
found that Mrs Elliott was an innocent
victim in her divorces.
Dr. Irvine, while admitting this fact
contended that the force of the. charges
against her rested in the fact that she
was living with a man whose wife was
still living, and from whom ne had beer
divorced merely on the ground of deser-
ton. For this reason Or. Irvine refused
Ia restore Mrs. Elliott to communion.
Bishop Talbot then demanded the. resig,
nation Of DR.. Irvine The latter refused
to comply at first, but eventually was
forced 10 give in.
The parish became vacant. the mem
beers made efforts to get Bishop Talbot t.
choose a successor, but failing in this
after a delay, they met and, as they had
perfect right TO do as an organized
parish, they elected Or. Irvine to act al
rector
This action was repudisted by the bishop
but the chancellor Of the diocese decided
that IL was perfectly legitimate.
On March II Dr.. Irvine was hailed int
court on charge Of forgery. The evidenc
developed that Bishop Talbot had appar
+ emily made a systematic campaign TO ge
rid Of Irvine, and, when the latter wa
held and called for trial some months later
/ Bishop Talbot appeared before the gran,
I jury Of Huntingdon Nounty and assste
. counsel IN pressing the indictments agains
Irvine. The indictment was quashed an
. Irvine freed.
Dr. Irvine cited before Bishop Talbot Z
show cause why the pastoral relation be
tween them should not be dissolved, re
piled by having the bishop cited for viola
ton OF the laws OF the church.
The bishop appointed a committee OF in
vestigation, and signed it's findings. reflect
ing seriously on Or. Irvine. Then came a
ecclesiastical court. Dr. Irvine decline
10 plead
In the workings OF this court there wer
many charges OF irregularities. BishO
Talbot did not appear to testify, as h
had been ordered, and DR.. Irvine contende
that this was because his evidence woul
help Irvine's case.
Eventually the ruling went against II
| vine and ne was untrocked by Bisho
Talbot in Scranton church, April q, 1900.
From that tims fer four yssrs. DIT Irwin