Collection › LCMS Convention Proceedings (St. Louis, Missouri) › 1935 · 36th Convention, Cleveland › Page 228
LCMS Convention Proceedings St. Louis, Missouri — 1935, Page 228

Scan: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod
Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

228 Proceedings of Thirty-Sixth Regular Convention,

patrons; we have spent big money, and still are spending money to
keep that department of our Plant properly efficient; we are meeting
every reasonable competition; we are complying with the code regu-
lations; we are furnishing high-grade material and up-to-date ser-
vice, and our owners, the members of our Synod, we modestly feel,
should patronize and support us in this, even if competitors offer
a slight monetary advantage.

We are sometimes urged to install a job-printing department
and are still seriously considering doing so. With our present equip-
ment we are not soliciting outside jobs because we should have enough
to do with our own work. If we were to enter the general job-
printing business as a branch, we should in the first place jeopardize
our income-tax-free status and our code standing; we should have
to install a dual standard of quality in order to enable us to compete
with other job-printers, an experiment which, we fear would result in
much confusion. Besides, we are frank to say there are valid reasons
why parishes, especially those geographically far removed from
St. Louis, should rather patronize local printers than send their work
on to us. The matter, however, is still before us. Our present man-
ager is not in favor of going into the job-printing business in a gen-
eral way.

This brings up another matter for reflection. It has been noticed
and criticized that some of our authors have books published by pub-
lishers other than ourselves. This practise is not altogether to be
eondemned.. For instance, in the case of a book published about
a year ago the manuscript was first offered to us, but we declined to
publish it because that particular book, being of a philosophical nature
rather than theological, was somewhat out of our sphere of publication
and by its very nature deserved to reach a market much wider than:
the market we can touch. We declined the manuscript and recom-
mended a general publisher. — Sometimes manuscripts even for other
reasons are not desired by us, and the author should not be faulted
if under those circumstances he offers his manuscript to other pub-
lishers. On the other hand, we feel rather strongly that we should
be recognized as having the first claim on the literary products of the
men our Synod supports and for whom our Synod furnishes the initial
forum and the ultimate market. We should not be jilted in favor
of other printers by our synodical boards and institutions even if
seemingly a few dimes can thus be saved in the expense account of
the respective board or institution.

Our experience seems to confirm our opinion that it would not be
unwise to reduce the subscription price of the Lutheran. Witness, Der
Lutheraner, and the Concordia Theological Monthly.

We made an attempt to carry out Synod’s resolution to publish
a juvenile weekly. A committee that we regarded as representative