# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1932_S255
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Ev. Luth. Synod of Missouri, Ohio, and Other States. 1932. 255

Wuereas, The congregations in Cleveland feel assured of their
ability to accommodate the general convention in a suitable manner;
therefore be it

Resolved, That Synod gratefully accept the invitation of the
Cleveland churches and agree to hold its 36th general convention in
Cleveland in 1935; and be it furthermore

Resolved, That Synod express its grateful appreciation for the
gracious invitation of the hospitable brethren in Detroit.

These resolutions were adopted by Synod.

Appeals.
Report of Committee 22 A: —

Your Committee, having been instructed to consider unprinted
Overtures 59, 83, and 97, herewith submits its report.

L

Unpublished Overture 59, dealing with the case of Mr. EF. F. A.
Riess. ‘

On the basis of the evidence presented, both documentary and
oral, your Committee finds —

a. That Mr. Riess is not entitled to receive aid from the Board of
Support. The regulations governing the action of that Board
definitely state that no support is to be granted to “those who, although
incapacitated for their profession, are able, and have an opportunity,
to support themselves by doing other work” ;

b. That as to his fitness for the ministry no evidence has been sub-
mitted to show that the ruling of the College of Presidents and of
Committee 18 of the Delegate Synod, 1929, should be reversed.

ec. As to his suspension from Holy Communion, Mr. Riess has not
yet appealed to the Southern California District, and therefore the
case does not properly come before this convention.

IT.

Unpublished Overture 83, dealing with the case of Mr. H. H. W.
Rosebrock. -

On the basis of his own overture your Committee finds that the
action of the South Dakota District endorsing the excommunication of
Mr. Rosebrock was fully warranted.

ITI.

Unpublished Overture 97, dealing with the case of Rev. J. A.
Duchow.

Your Committee has reexamined the evidence in this case and
recommends to Synod that it abide by the findings of Committee’ 210
of 1929, reading as follows: —