# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1944_S926
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

APPEAL MATTERS 848
[904]

Appeal of Western District in Owensville, Mo., Case

Wuereas, “The appeal of the Rev. Paul Melcher and Zion Con-
gregation of Owensville, Mo., against expulsion from Synod by the
Western District was properly submitted for review to a committee”
(Proceedings, 1941, p. 426), the committee consisting of Pastors H. C.
Schreck and E. Berthold and Prof. Walter Baepler; and

Wuereas, “It was not possible for this Committee to arrive at
a verdict prior to” the convention of Synod, in Fort Wayne, June
18—27, 1941 (Proceedings, 1941, p. 426); and

Wuereas, Said convention in Fort Wayne adopted the follow-
ing resolution: “Resolved, That we support the action of President
Behnken not to take the ‘matter out of the hands of this committee
and place it before the convention” (Proceedings, 1941, p. 426); and

Wuenreas, In accordance with Synod’s aforementioned resolu-
tion this Committee continued the examination of the Owensville
Appeal, rendering a verdict August 28, 1941, in which it sustained
the action of the Western District; and

Wuereas, Subsequently, before Synod had the opportunity to
examine the decision of said committee (see By-Laws, Section VIII,
paragraph 4), the same appeal, without new evidence and without
showing error in procedure, was placed into the hands of the new
Board of Appeals created by Synod at the Fort Wayne Convention
in 1941; and

Wuereas, We contend that placing the Owensville Appeal into
. the hands of the Board of Appeals before Synod had the oppor-
tunity to act on the report of the Schreck Committee was an error
in procedure; and

Wuereas, The Board of Appeals on July 29, 1942, rendered an
opinion on the Owensville Appeal which conflicts with the decision
of the Schreck Committee now pending and awaiting action by
Synod; and

Wuereas, We contend that the Board of Appeals erred in pro-
cedure in that they based their decision on the By-Laws of Synod
p. 52 (1937 ed.), Section E, paragraph 3, which paragraph does not
apply to the Owensville case, while p. 28 (1937 ed.), Art. VII, Sec-
tion D, paragraph 2, does apply; and

WHEREAS, We contend further that the Board of Appeals erred
in procedure by employing the term “advisory body” in Art. VII
of Synod’s Constitution as applying to provisions of the Constitu-
tion and By-Laws which members of Synod by their signature have
pledged to respect, while, in fact, that Article employs the term
“advisory body” as applying to “resolutions of Synod”;

sss