Synodical Conference Convention Proceedings St. Louis, Missouri — 1920, Page 18

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

18 Verhandlungen der ſiebenundzwanzigſten Verſammlung

also your best interests in urging this meeting before your next con-
vention.”

Hierauf lief folgende Antwort von Dr. Stub ein, datiert 26. Mai
1917:

“The request made by you as the committee appointed by the
Synodical Conference to confer with the Norwegian Synod or any
representative of same in regard to the Madison Agreement, has been
received. I brought the matter of the meeting of our committee with
your committee before our Church Council, asking its advice. The
Church Council declared unanimously that it would not be advisable
or expedient to have any meeting before the convention in June,
when the three Norwegian Lutheran bodies will unite into one large
church. The time requested by you for the meeting is too short. We
have larger and smaller meetings nearly all the time, in order to
prepare for the large convention. Furthermore, we have regarded it
as our duty to take care of our church matters and try to finish them
before we begin conferences and other meetings with other synods.
After our meeting in June we shall have time to meet with you, and
the Synodical Conference does not meet before August next year.
The convention in June may appoint one more member on our com-
mittee (we are only two at present), or may appoint another com-
mittee to deal with your committee.

“The Church Council also instructed me to call your attention
to the injustice that has been done to our Synod by your committee,
by publishing in your report of (to) the meeting of the Synodical
Conference at Toledo the report which an anonymous committee of
the so-called minority sent about the transactions of our Synod at its
meeting last summer. This report is by us regarded as entirely un-
reliable, and we do not know who is responsible for it. By spreading
this report among the members of the Synodical Conference you cer-
tainly have given them the impression that our last Synod meeting
must have been ‘eine Raeubersynode.’ The Church Council was unan-
imously of the opinion that this act of yours was an unfriendly act.
At present I leave it to you to do what you may regard as right.”

Auf dieſen Brief erwiderte Ihr Komitee am 29. Mai 1917,
wie folgt:

“We note that it is the opinion of your Church Council that no
meeting with our committee can take place prior to your convention
in June, but that you will have time for a meeting after your con-
vention. We await your pleasure in fixing time and place for this
meeting, and request that you give us notice as far ahead as possible,
in order that we may make our arrangements.

“We also note that your Church Council feels that an injustice
has been done to them by our committee's report to the Synodical

18 Proceedings of the twenty-seventh convention

[Printed in English.]
also your best interests in urging this meeting before your next convention.”

Thereupon the following reply from Dr. Stub came in, dated 26 May 1917:

“The request made by you as the committee appointed by the Synodical Conference to confer with the Norwegian Synod or any representative of same in regard to the Madison Agreement, has been received. I brought the matter of the meeting of our committee with your committee before our Church Council, asking its advice. The Church Council declared unanimously that it would not be advisable or expedient to have any meeting before the convention in June, when the three Norwegian Lutheran bodies will unite into one large church. The time requested by you for the meeting is too short. We have larger and smaller meetings nearly all the time, in order to prepare for the large convention. Furthermore, we have regarded it as our duty to take care of our church matters and try to finish them before we begin conferences and other meetings with other synods. After our meeting in June we shall have time to meet with you, and the Synodical Conference does not meet before August next year. The convention in June may appoint one more member on our committee (we are only two at present), or may appoint another committee to deal with your committee.

“The Church Council also instructed me to call your attention to the injustice that has been done to our Synod by your committee, by publishing in your report of (to) the meeting of the Synodical Conference at Toledo the report which an anonymous committee of the so-called minority sent about the transactions of our Synod at its meeting last summer. This report is by us regarded as entirely unreliable, and we do not know who is responsible for it. By spreading this report among the members of the Synodical Conference you certainly have given them the impression that our last Synod meeting must have been ‘eine Raeubersynode.’ The Church Council was unanimously of the opinion that this act of yours was an unfriendly act. At present I leave it to you to do what you may regard as right.”

Our committee replied to this letter on 29 May 1917, as follows:

“We note that it is the opinion of your Church Council that no meeting with our committee can take place prior to your convention in June, but that you will have time for a meeting after your convention. We await your pleasure in fixing time and place for this meeting, and request that you give us notice as far ahead as possible, in order that we may make our arrangements.

“We also note that your Church Council feels that an injustice has been done to them by our committee's report to the Synodical