# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1941_S423
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Appeals 423

APPEALS

Report of Committee 19A on Pannkoke © Appeal

he Committee first brought in the following report:

~Wuereas, At the very beginning of our meeting an objection
¢ raised as to the competence of this committee to deal with
‘appeal of Dr. O. H. Pannkoke because of Dr. Pannkoke’s Synod-
e circulation of certain papers — which have represented Synod
“ts officials as unfair and biased and cast suspicion on all
odical procedure as well as on this committee; therefore be it
Resolved, That synod decide whether this objection should be
ustained and Dr. O. H. Pannkoke be asked to apologize for cir-
wating Synod before his appeal can be heard.

-. Action of Synod: It was resolved to instruct the Committee to
roceed with the matter that was assigned to it.

The Committee later reported as follows:

. Dr. O. H. Pannkoke’s appeal was originally worded as an appeal
from the opinion of the Rev. M. Walker, President of the English
District. Upon representations Dr. Pannkoke changed the wording
as to read as an appeal from the English District. Your Com-
‘mittee therefore felt that the appeal could be taken up by Synod.

However, your Committee cannot function any longer because
r.Pannkoke stated that he would not take up the consideration
of his appeal unless President M. Walker and Vice-President Jesse
“of the English District were present. President M. Walker could
ot be present.

Your Committee therefore recommends that the four Vice-
“Presidents of Synod appoint a committee of five acceptable to both
the English District and the appellant to review the entire case
of the appellant and adjudicate it.

Action of Synod: Action was postponed until Committee 6 had
reported concerning the new Board of Appeals. After Synod had
adopted this proposal, it was resolved to turn over this whole appeal
to the new Board of Appeals.

Concerning the “Smith Case Reporter” the Committee re-
ported:
With reference to the Smith Case Reporter your Committee
seriously doubts that Dr. O. H. Pannkoke had exhausted all proper
means of appeal provided by our Constitution (see pp. 236, 237 of
the 1938 Proceedings) before circularizing our ministerium or a
considerable part thereof.

Owing to the fact, however, that Dr. O. H. Pannkoke refused to
make his statement regarding the Smith Case Reporter to the Com-
mittee and excluded himself from further discussion by leaving