# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1944_S357
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Appeal Matters. ; 357

action of the venerable President in relation to this committee
‘ratified by the Fort Wayne Convention, as appears by the

orials and elsewhere. This Committee functioned so that on
st: 24, 1941, it submitted its: decision in the matter, which was
rable ‘to the Western District.

‘In the meantime and at the same Fort Wayne Convention of
nod the latter created the Board of Appeals, to which Board
‘all appeal matters were to be referred. The venerable President
ubmitted the Owensville controversy (after it had been decided’
y. ithe Schreck Committee and protested by the Owensville con-
regation) to this newly constituted Board of Appeals. This body
in ‘turn acted on this matter not merely as a board of review, but
t corisidered the case de novo as an original matter. In due time
t’also presumed to adjudicate this controversy. Its decision fav-
ored Zion Congregation; in other words, it arrived at a conclusion
pposite to that of the Schreck Committee. According to the in-
érmation of your reporting Committee, the authorities of the
‘Western District: privately protested the action of the venerable
President in his submission of this controversy to the Board of

‘. We find that it was the duty of the Schreck Committee to
‘adjudicate the Owensville case, subject only to reversal or modifi-
ation by the Synod. We perceive no intervening event which
erminated the jurisdiction of the Schreck Committee. The same
onvention which created the Board of the Appeals also validated
“the authority of the Schreck Committee (if it needed validation).
‘According to-our information, this Committee has at no time been
otified to terminate its assigned functions pertaining to this’case.

It must necessarily follow that the Board of Appeals at no
“time had any jurisdiction to consider this case as an original con-
troversy; ‘on the other hand, it. never assumed to act as a board of
view of the evidence submitted before the Schreck committee.
‘Stating it another way: the parties to this issue had not one, but
‘two days in court.