# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1950_S633
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

APPEAL MATTERS 633

IX. APPEAL MATTERS

Report of Board of Appeals

The convention in 1947 increased the membership of the Board
of Appeals from seven to eleven. The personnel of the Board acting
on the one case before it was as follows: Prof. Paul F. Koehneke,
chairman; Rev. H. J. A. Bouman, vice-chairman; Prof. Erwin
Schnedler, secretary; Rev. Kurt Daib; Rev. E. E. Mayer; Rev.
F. E. Schumann; Mr. Theodore W. Markworth; Mr. Paul Brandt;
Mr. E. C. Jacobs; Mr. Walter H. Kuhlman; Mr. M. F. Lobitz. —
Rev. W. C. Wangerin, a member of the Board since its inception in
1941, was called to his eternal home on September 19, 1948; Pastor
Schumann succeeded him as a member of the Board, while Pastor
Bouman was named to succeed him as vice-chairman. — Mr. Lobitz
substituted for Mr. Carl Thrun, who for reasons which the Board
considered valid asked to be excused from participation in the
Owensville-Melcher case.

To date five meetings have been held during the triennium,
all of them devoted to a consideration of the Owensville-Melcher
appeal. The convention at Saginaw in 1944 refused to receive the
Board’s decision on this appeal and referred the case to a new
committee, usually called Appeals Board Number Two. This
latter Board submitted an opinion to the Chicago Convention in
1947, but the Committee of Review found error in procedure and
remanded the case to the Board of Appeals.

Accordingly the present Board of Appeals carefully examined
the case on the basis of the mass of documents that have ac-
cumulated and on November 28, 1949, rendered an opinion in favor
of the appellants.

At the date of this writing an appeal from the Minnesota Dis-
trict has been referred to the Board. The Board hopes to hold
a hearing and to conclude this case before the convention of Synod.

Pau. F: Koresnexe,- Chairman
ERwin Scunepier, Secretary

[901]

[902]
Revision of Appeals System Regulations
Wuereas, Experience in the use of the regulations of Synod’s
present Appeals System and the study of the same show that the
regulations should be revised; and

Wuenreas, The cases which may come under the jurisdiction of
the Appeals Boards are too limited; and —