The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-01-14
IS WITHOUT
 ANY POWERS Board of Inquiry Drops
 Charges.
 - DR. IRVINE DETERMMED May Again File Accusations Against Talbot. pr. Bodine Gives Out ststemsnt mat Committee was wifheat Cauoni- cal Authority to Go Into the
 Matter.
|DR. IRVINE DETERMlNED

Reading, Pa, Jan. 13.-There will be no investigation for the present at least of the charges preferred by Rev. Dr.L. N. W. Irvine. against Bishop Ethelbert Talbot of the central Penn- sylvania diocese of the Protestant Episcopal church.
 "A lack of canonical authority is the conclusion of the eleven members who attended today's meeting of the board of inquiry. The full membership consists of sixteen.
 By many 1t Is said that other charges will be preferred against Bishop Tal- bot under canons now in force. Late this evening Rev. Or. Badine. the presi- dent. gave out a statement embodying the proceedings and conclusion of the board. It Is in part as follows:
 The lay delegate from New York (Mr. Stetson) called attention to the fact that the clerical deputies from the diocese to the last general convention were Rev. Drs. Dix. Huntington, Gros- venar and Parks of whom all excep- ting the Rev. Dr. Dix actually sat and acted as deputies in the convention throughout all of it's sessions"
 Dix Declined to Sit.
 The Rev. Dr. Dix declined to sis and did not sit in any session of the convention. But in his place sat tha Rev. pr. Harry P. Nichols. who was duly elected as provisional clerical deputy from New York. The lay deputy from New York further ob- served that Undoubtedly in ignorance of these particular facts )both Dr. Dix and Dr. Nichols had been drawn and notified to attend as members of the board of inquiry, though both of them could not be deemed to have been deputies to the last general convention, and also that the list of clerical deputies from New York. from which Dr. Dix and pr. Nichols were drawn to serve as members of q board of inquiry, either failed to include the names of the other three clerical deputies from New York who actually sat in the convention or else included the names of i've presbyters as cieri- rcaf deputies. whereas under tao con- situation of the church there could not be more than four clerical deputies from one diocease at any one time, a Tn either case the list from which such names were drawn was not c list of the deputies to the last general con- vention as required by canon nine sec- ton for either it included one more name than was entitled to be therein or it excluded one name that should have been therein.
 Presiding Bishops stand.
 Tt was fully understood that the taCtS dpONS nHQ not come to the attention of the presiding bish- op prior to the time of his designa- ton of the members of the board and his notification and communication under the canon 9, section {. It was further understood that the presiding bishop deemed himself to have dis- charged his full duty in the matter and to be functus officio after such action on his part.
 auTraa, 4ha.n cordgtioru tha aIavau deputies present. not unmindful of their duty of cauonical obedience to the presiding bishop in all matters in which he should have exercised the authority of his high office, felt and feel that the duty deyolved upon them to determine for themselves what was their present position under the law of the church. and what was their duty to the church.
 After serious and protracted dlS- cussIon and consideration the eleven deputies present unanimously reached the following conclusion:
 ~The deputies present are bound themselves to take knowledge of the facts concerning the clerical deputa- rion from New York and now formally brought to their attention by the lay deputy from New York.
 Lacking In Authority.
 Upon those facts the constitution of the board to make preliminary inquiry into the charges above mentioned is lacking in canonical authority; and the canonicaI defect is so serious as to render 1t inexpedient and improper for the deputies present to assume to organize or to act as a board to make preliminary Inquiry into the said charges under Canon 9. as it existed prior to January 1, 1905, even though 1t is considered (though doubted by those preferring the charges) that any effective action could be taken under that canon which was superseded on that day"