# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1944_S348
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

848 Appeal Matters -

Detroit case. Subsequently, however, the editorial committees of
The Lutheran Witness and Der Lutheraner, acting on the advice
of the faculty of Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, refused to publish
the decision in the Western District case, on the ground that Synod
had not specifically granted this right to the Board ‘of Appeals.
The Board feels that the members of Synod are entitled to be in:’
formed of the action of the Board and that the church Papers are "J
the proper. vehicles to convey this information. The memorial of
. our Board, which is being presented to Synod for consideration,

ides that thi .
provides that this be done. Synop’s Boarp or APPEALS

Paut F. Kornneke, Chairman
ERwINn ScHNEDLER, Secretary

Concerning this report Committee 20A submitted the fol-
lowing report, which was adopted:

We have carefully read the report of the Board of A'ppeals as
found on pages 381 to 338 of the Book of Memorials. We find that
a number of decisions of the Board of Appeals have been appealed
from. These appeals are being handled by Committees 20B to 20D.

Our Committee would commend the evident care with which
the Board of Appeals sought to understand its task and the regula- .
tions which were to guide them in the performance of this task.

Your Committee also calls attention to the prodigious amount
of time and effort which the Board of Appeals expended upon its’
task during the past triennium and recommends that Synod ac-
knowledge their efforts with thanks.

' ‘ ACTION
This report was adopted.

The Committee furthermore reported: After carefully review-
ing the report of the Board of Appeals re Smith Case Reporter .
and after reviewing the appeal of the English District from the
decision of the Board. of Appeals and a letter from the Detroit
Pastoral Conference, and in view of the defamatory nature of the
Smith Case Reporter, your Committee begs leave to recommend
that besides receiving the apology of Dr. O. H. Pannkoke as printed
in the Book of M emorials, page 337, Synod demand of Dr. O. H.
Pannkoke that he apologize directly and in writing to Synod, to
the President of Synod, to “The Home Town Church,” and to
'*T Am Busy,” his apology to include a specific retraction of the
unbrotherly and insulting statements which appeared in the
columns of the Smith Case Reporter.