Synodical Conference Convention Proceedings St. Louis, Missouri — 1914, Page 41

front cover inside front cover Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54 Page 55 Page 56 Page 57 Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 62 Page 63 Page 64 Page 65 Page 66 Page 67 Page 68 Page 69 Page 70 Page 71 Page 72 Page 73 Page 74 Page 75 Page 76 Page 77 Page 78 Page 79 Page 80 Page 81 Page 82 Page 83 Page 84 Page 85 Page 86 Page 87 Page 88 inside back cover back cover

der Ev.⸗Luth. Synodalkonferenz von Nordamerika. 1914. 41

„(Herr Prof. Dau an Herrn D. Stub.)

“ ‘St. Louis, Mo., May 19, 1913.

“ ‘The Reverend H. G. Stub, D. D.,
“ ‘806 Sheldon Ave.,
“ ‘St. Paul, Minn.

“ ‘Reverend Dr. Stub: —

“ ‘Your communication of May 17th has been received. In reply
would say that the joint letter of Dr. Pieper and myself was intended
chiefly as an acknowledgment of the letter of Rev. Nordby, written
in behalf of the Church Council of the Norwegian Synod, and con-
veying the information that a visit of the committee of the Synodical
Conference at your next synodical convention was, in the judgment
of your Church Council, not desirable, and expressing, furthermore,
the wish on the part of your Church Council that for the official visit
of the committee to the next convention of the Norwegian Synod
another visit might be substituted, viz., a visit of the committee of
the Synodical Conference to a committee appointed by your Church
Council for the purpose of discussing the message which the Synodical
Conference has charged its committee to deliver to the Norwegian
Synod. Our letter also sought to explain why we did not see our way
clear to accept the proposition of your Church Council. We are
indeed willing to meet the wish of your Church Council to this
extent that we shall not attend the convention of your Synod. We
shall defer to your judgment regarding the desirableness of our visit
to your convention at this time, and shall explain our failure to
attend your convention by the letter of your Church Council to
President Gausewitz.

“ ‘The offer of Dr. Pieper and myself to meet with the com-
mittee appointed by your Church Council upon our own responsibility
and as private persons was made as the best way which we saw for
meeting the wish of your Church Council. As the committee ap-
pointed by the Synodical Conference has not been given discretionary
powers to adopt any sort of way for reaching the ear of the Nor-
wegian Synod, but was given a specified order which we could not
reasonably claim to have carried out by the meeting which your
Church Council proposes, we believe that we have no right as a
committee to substitute for the visit which the Synodical Conference
instructed us to make to the Norwegian Synod that meeting with
your committee which your Church Council has proposed. In other
words, even if the meeting which your Church Council has proposed,
and which Dr. Pieper and myself have accepted upon our own re-
sponsibility, were held, we are of opinion that the resolution of the
Synodical Conference would still be unexecuted, and that its exe-
cution would merely have been deferred until a more convenient time,

of the Ev. Luth. Synodical Conference of North America. 1914. 41

[Printed in English; the heading in brackets is German.]

(Prof. Dau to Dr. Stub.)

“ ‘St. Louis, Mo., May 19, 1913.

“ ‘The Reverend H. G. Stub, D. D.,
“ ‘806 Sheldon Ave.,
“ ‘St. Paul, Minn.

“ ‘Reverend Dr. Stub: —

“ ‘Your communication of May 17th has been received. In reply
would say that the joint letter of Dr. Pieper and myself was intended
chiefly as an acknowledgment of the letter of Rev. Nordby, written
in behalf of the Church Council of the Norwegian Synod, and con-
veying the information that a visit of the committee of the Synodical
Conference at your next synodical convention was, in the judgment
of your Church Council, not desirable, and expressing, furthermore,
the wish on the part of your Church Council that for the official visit
of the committee to the next convention of the Norwegian Synod
another visit might be substituted, viz., a visit of the committee of
the Synodical Conference to a committee appointed by your Church
Council for the purpose of discussing the message which the Synodical
Conference has charged its committee to deliver to the Norwegian
Synod. Our letter also sought to explain why we did not see our way
clear to accept the proposition of your Church Council. We are
indeed willing to meet the wish of your Church Council to this
extent that we shall not attend the convention of your Synod. We
shall defer to your judgment regarding the desirableness of our visit
to your convention at this time, and shall explain our failure to
attend your convention by the letter of your Church Council to
President Gausewitz.

“ ‘The offer of Dr. Pieper and myself to meet with the com-
mittee appointed by your Church Council upon our own responsibility
and as private persons was made as the best way which we saw for
meeting the wish of your Church Council. As the committee ap-
pointed by the Synodical Conference has not been given discretionary
powers to adopt any sort of way for reaching the ear of the Nor-
wegian Synod, but was given a specified order which we could not
reasonably claim to have carried out by the meeting which your
Church Council proposes, we believe that we have no right as a
committee to substitute for the visit which the Synodical Conference
instructed us to make to the Norwegian Synod that meeting with
your committee which your Church Council has proposed. In other
words, even if the meeting which your Church Council has proposed,
and which Dr. Pieper and myself have accepted upon our own re-
sponsibility, were held, we are of opinion that the resolution of the
Synodical Conference would still be unexecuted, and that its exe-
cution would merely have been deferred until a more convenient time,