# Synodical Conference Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1920_S18
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

18 Proceedings of the twenty-seventh convention

[Printed in English.]
also your best interests in urging this meeting before your next convention.”

Thereupon the following reply from Dr. Stub came in, dated 26 May 1917:

“The request made by you as the committee appointed by the Synodical Conference to confer with the Norwegian Synod or any representative of same in regard to the Madison Agreement, has been received. I brought the matter of the meeting of our committee with your committee before our Church Council, asking its advice. The Church Council declared unanimously that it would not be advisable or expedient to have any meeting before the convention in June, when the three Norwegian Lutheran bodies will unite into one large church. The time requested by you for the meeting is too short. We have larger and smaller meetings nearly all the time, in order to prepare for the large convention. Furthermore, we have regarded it as our duty to take care of our church matters and try to finish them before we begin conferences and other meetings with other synods. After our meeting in June we shall have time to meet with you, and the Synodical Conference does not meet before August next year. The convention in June may appoint one more member on our committee (we are only two at present), or may appoint another committee to deal with your committee.

“The Church Council also instructed me to call your attention to the injustice that has been done to our Synod by your committee, by publishing in your report of (to) the meeting of the Synodical Conference at Toledo the report which an anonymous committee of the so-called minority sent about the transactions of our Synod at its meeting last summer. This report is by us regarded as entirely unreliable, and we do not know who is responsible for it. By spreading this report among the members of the Synodical Conference you certainly have given them the impression that our last Synod meeting must have been ‘eine Raeubersynode.’ The Church Council was unanimously of the opinion that this act of yours was an unfriendly act. At present I leave it to you to do what you may regard as right.”

Our committee replied to this letter on 29 May 1917, as follows:

“We note that it is the opinion of your Church Council that no meeting with our committee can take place prior to your convention in June, but that you will have time for a meeting after your convention. We await your pleasure in fixing time and place for this meeting, and request that you give us notice as far ahead as possible, in order that we may make our arrangements.

“We also note that your Church Council feels that an injustice has been done to them by our committee's report to the Synodical