By the courtesy of some officials, I was permitted to take a seat within the bar, in a position whence I could see and hear every thing that was said and done.

It was a curious spectacle, that array of animated faces that crowded the farther end of the room, all intent on hearing the trial of one of the most interesting and important cases that had ever come up for decision before a Grecian tribunal.

The

The judges chosen to try the accused appeared very punctually, entering the court-room from a small chamber in the rear. As the accusation related not to a crime, but to an offence of secondary grade, the legislation of Greece, in imitation of the French practice, makes the bench sole judges both of the law and of the fact. Trial by jury is only resorted to in cases of murder, treason, and other felonious deeds. five judges, Messrs. Nicolopoulus, Papaspirides, Kallisperes, Boniseres, and Economides, took their seats on a platform facing the audience: the first-named, as president, occupying the middle seat. At opposite ends of the table before them, and on the same platform, sat Mr. Typaldus, the attorney general, and Mr. Matakides, the clerk.

The first duty of the clerk was to call over the names of the witnesses. The prosecution had cited twelve witnesses, of whom nine answered to their names; and the defence twenty-one, out of whom only ten ventured to appear a striking disparity, which tended to show how strong was the fear of popular or priestly violence entertained by those who should have borne testimony to the good character of the defendant. Dr. King perceived that there was no ground for expecting any more favorable occasion, and readily consented to the proposal of the attorney general, that both sides should mutually abandon the absentees. The trial accordingly proceeded.

I have stated that the accusation against Dr. King was that he had, in public discourse, during the years 1850 and 1851, reviled the Greek religion. To this was originally added the utterly gratuitous accusation of reviling religion in general. But the Areopagus, on appeal, had judged the latter imputation too ridiculous to be sustained, and had ordered its erasure. It was, therefore, to prove the former part of the indictment alone that the witnesses were summoned.

It would be tedious to describe, or even enumerate, the various witnesses, as they were successively brought up to the open space in front of the president, and sworn. They merely repeated what they had previously testified in the secret inquest, which always precedes the finding of a bill of indictment. In the main, the testimony seemed to be true; but a Protestant would have found it difficult to imagine in what respect the language attributed to Dr. King was objectionable, or tended in the least to constitute a reviling of the Greek Church unless, indeed, it be reviling to state personal opinions when they happen to be diametrically opposed to those of an auditor. In short, the testimony proved only that Dr. King held the doctrines generally received by the religious communion to which he belonged in America.

Some were

The witnesses were nearly all young men. students in the medical school, and others candidates for the priesthood. Besides the usual animation that characterizes the Greek, they seemed moved by strong partisan feeling. I remember, in particular, a youth called Kyriakoules, whose expressions of enmity against the defendant were so strong, that the presiding judge himself was obliged to interrupt him, and exclaim, "You are here as a witness, not as an accuser!” He held in his hand a paper, from which he attempted several times to read extracts; but desisted on being told that his business was merely to answer the questions put to him. Persons who stood near him when he was not testifying have assured me that he was armed with a dagger, and that he incited the boys around him to hoot when any thing favorable to Dr. King was elicited.

A lawyer would have noticed one striking peculiarity in the testimony, as well as in the indictment. Although several of the witnesses pretended to have heard Dr. King use language disrespectful to the Greek religion, they never mentioned the exact words, nor specified the time or occasion of their utterance. Hence the defence was utterly unable to bring proof that such language had never been made use of, since no witness could depose any thing more than that no abuse had been indulged in upon the occasions when he was present. No testimony, however, was more flagrantly unfair

SPEECH OF THE KING'S ATTORNEY.

359

than that of a half-crazed old man, who was permitted to give in his evidence against Dr. King, although, by his own confession, he had not entered the missionary's house for seven years. Yet the term stated in the indictment embraced only the years 1850 and 1851!

In the examination of the witnesses, the president of the court displayed the most obvious prepossession in favor of the testimony adverse to Dr. King, and of those who so testified, whether their evidence was pertinent or not. On the other hand, he seemed determined to browbeat the numerous and respectable witnesses for the defence-a course which, combined with the tumultuous applause, or the equally pronounced disapproval of the audience, to a great extent encouraged by the supineness of the court, disturbed not a little the self-possession of the witnesses. The presiding judge even went so far as to reprimand one of the criers of the court for ordering some noisy priests to be silent, and deprived him for that day of the badge of office.

The king's attorney now rose, and argued the case for an hour and a half, or two hours. In order to prove that the accused was guilty of reviling the Greek religion during the two years mentioned in the indictment, he brought forward some books written by Dr. King, and showed what his creed was. One of these, entitled "A Defence," was published many years since; and the other, "An Exposition of an Apostolic Church," was published in the United States. He did not attempt to prove that these pamphlets were written by Dr. King; but taking this for granted, he inferred, from passages which the court permitted him to read, that Dr. King believed, and therefore taught, doctrines at variance with the standards of the Orthodox Church. And this, he maintained, constituted the crime of reviling the Greek religion, as contemplated in the law.

At the end of the lengthy theological discourse of the king's attorney, Mr. Triantaphyllos, one of Dr. King's lawyers, began by alluding to the contrast presented by the scene now witnessed with that beheld twenty-three years before, when his client had come, intrusted by the liberality of the American people, with provisions to feed the famishing Greeks. He

then proceeded to answer the arguments of the king's attorney; and said that that officer had wrongly sought to introduce a religious discussion. (Here he was interrupted by the court, and told to abstain from such language—as if the king's attorney were a privileged character.) If such a discussion were to come off, Dr. King should have employed Protestant counsel to defend his religious tenets. In conclusion, he urged that, by the constitution and laws of Greece, religious toleration and the right of discussion were guaranteed.

Mr. Pelicas followed, with a clear and logical speech, in which he exhibited the inapplicability of the law to the case of Dr. King. The mere expression of opinions adverse to those of the Greek Church could not fairly be construed as a reviling of, or even an indication of malevolence toward, that Church; much less as an insult to religion in general—an accusation which the king's attorney had sought illegally to reintroduce into the indictment, and for which not a particle of evidence had been shown.

When the king's attorney had made a brief rejoinder, Dr. King arose, holding some documents in his hands, and wished to say a few words in his own defence. The papers contained proof that the prosecution was of the nature of a conspiracy against him, and that some of the witnesses were principals in the plot. The judges had already risen, and were about to retire. Mr. Nicolopoulus said that opportunity had already been given to the defendant to speak; but that he might, if he chose, hand in the documents that he held, and the court would take them into consideration. Dr. King stated some facts in explanation of their contents; and then, seeing the uselessness of attempting to convince an impatient court, handed the papers to the president, and sat down. judges, most of whom had remained standing, immediately left the room, to confer as to their verdict.

The

About half an hour elapsed before the door opened, and the judges resumed their seats. Mr. Nicolopoulus proceeded to pronounce a decision, which was afterward reduced to writing, with considerable alterations. In the court-room, it was stated that the accused was found guilty of reviling the Greek Church; in the recorded verdict, that his offence was the

SENTENCE PRONOUNCED.

361

less heinous one of using malevolent expressions against it. Only two such expressions are singled out from all the mass of testimony, and from the articles of the indictment, as the ground of the finding of the court. This is what the court says: "The calling the Mother of God simply a woman, and affirming that she bare also other children, and saying. that the Communion, that is, the body and blood of our Lord. Jesus Christ, is bread and wine, are incontestably malevolent expressions."

in

The defendant being thus found guilty, the king's attorney moved that he be sentenced to three months' imprisonment, according to the law in this case provided; and that, on the expiration of that term, he be banished from the country, accordance with another article, as a person convicted of a crime, and "pre-eminently dangerous to the common safety and to morals, by his manner of life, character, and conduct." The defendant's counsel opposed the motion, averring that the latter portion of the penalty was utterly unsuitable, since there was nothing in the history of the defendant that rendered him obnoxious to any of these charges.

The court now retired a second time, and shortly returned. They sentenced "the said Jonas King, convicted as aforesaid, to fifteen days' imprisonment, to the costs of the trial, and the duty on the stamps, to be collected by the committal of his person," and ordered "his exile from the territory of Greece, after the execution of the sentence of imprisonment.'

Thus was concluded this judicial farce. The judges, who had come instructed to convict Dr. King, withdrew, and the audience, who had come to see him convicted, after expressing their joy by prolonged applause, hastened down to the street to see the missionary carried away to prison. The king's attorney, however, who, as it subsequently appeared, was in no

* One of the judges that sat on this trial, with whom I had some slight acquaintance, was in the habit of saying that he wholly disapproved of the verdict and sentence, and that he had voted against their adoption in the private deliberations of the court. Since, however, he manifested no disapprobation of the extraordinary conduct of the presiding judge, and did not exercise his right of withholding his signature from the record, I am at a loss to know how much credit is due to the assertion.

Q