New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1854-06-30
GREECE.
THE CASE OF DR.. KING.


The Hon G. p Marsh while Minister PeDipo,entary
at Constnnnople instructed TO inquire into the
trovcrsy between the Rev. Dr. King aud The Greek Gov
eminent respecting lands purchased by Dr. h'ng Mr..
Marsh reports in substance as follows;
In the year ls2s. the Rev Jonas King an American
citizen arrived in Greece one Of the Fhheene AGENTS,
IN assist In relieving the tricks famine AID distress.
consequent upon their struggle for independence ana IN
,hc corSe OF the following year he married and took mp
his residence in that country In the year ieSs ne pn
clssed TWO valuable and engbly situated parcels oil
S Of Athens living contiguous 10 each other, and con
tanning together nearly ten thousand common oe snHh
Greek measure. about eighty thousand square
feet English. . -, -. -. -. -,
estate were made Athens and elsewhere m 'cce by
persons not then own- allegiance 10 ha' state ana VINO
never sterwerd contracted lie "buSstl"hs vi cAens of
l;cc, mes purehas,s were made under existing con-
.tutiona pro,s hey were AZ az .n'es
by tie Greek Governments. which ~ d'sif"u> :" ,.Sn
en;n ITSELF bv attracting territory the eapt inc en-
,srnrs, and the intelligence OF European ana aiercah
enicraats and the validity OF tie titles SO oSTe" ns
never been disputed but has ON the contrary oeen CON
stauv recognized by the creek GOvernueit WHICH nas
unr.oyer rereaedy admitted the title OF ID. hing ana
BIS rgh; indemnity tor his lands sequeseTed by 'oV
eirment TO pubic use.
formally notifies Dr. kn, that by the plan Of tho city his
land ~oud be taken for the Church of The SAVIOR and al
though the claimant authorized 10 make use of hs
propety in o nonay ment OF the indemnity yet IN
isss the ro.ce refuses c GOw him 20 build, unless under
stimulation that he would claim damages the build
inc when his land shogd be taken for public Use; the
Npi-ter of the Interior 1880, informs him that accord
inc 70 the plan ii the city he cannot dispose Of the
and in ali the subsequent correspondence the Government
still treats The proper! a nav g oeeh ao'uny app"prS
ated 10 the public bohooi. -
H. oh.trueions To Dr. Kings free enjoyment OF his
RIGHTS have rrocooced either directly from oees ~ the
Coy,meu or from those Of the demus, acting by order
or IN beha. OF the Government. The Government mas
,scamed none OF these acts Il has never rcn0Gnced inc
plan OF occupying the ground in question Tor NATIONAL
purpcscs and il until the 10th OF April 1897 after
dopTNng the claimant oi his property rghts Tor even
teen years ana after he had asked tho interpretation oil
his Government that The pretense resorted TO oy
the Ministry that tho land was 10 be taken Tor me use oi
the municipality, ard Tot for that Of the nation.
The execution of lho ordinance Tor erecting ma
tiona edce this relieve tie Government
from its responsibility The ordinance has never been re
yokc and the Government; has turned deaf ear 10 eve
~ application for release of the injunction. The letter
OF the Minister OF the interior Of 1874 not revocation
of the ordinance, had tue Minister any power TO re-
woke il.
The land had been seized for national purposes before
the Constitution of lsis. The Government estopped by
it's repeated subsequent acts from DENYING that the title has
passed il, and it is admitted that II could had II
been disposed TO do which there Is no reason To be
Level return the lands upon the hands OF the owner de-
prociated in value and without compensation OF his pro-
prietary rights for long period Such has been the
view which the Government itself has taken {" It's ooSH
iy one of the erly plans certain lands Of Mr.. Gropus
Austrian Consul General, selected as site for the
roval palace The plan abandoned and the palace
brit elsewhere Mr. Gropus claimed and received from
he National Government the full value OF his lands, al
though the Government did not occupy them for the pro-
posed purpose any other ever take any Visible pos
session of them, and they lie waste to this day
discover distinction principle between the of
Mr. Cropius and the present and in the c.cum-
stances except that DIR. King has enjoyed the qualified
possession OF his land though forbidden 10 turn TO any
profitable account fact which cannot certan eXonerate
the Government from its responsibility FOR intervening
damages at the least.
IL is believed that unless the Government OF Greece
disprove or avoid the facts eced in this report the claim
of Dr. King against for redress is fully out.
the opinion of able professional advisers well skilled in the
laws of Greece and familiar with the administration OF
Justice in her courts well every impartial observer
at Athens that however clear his rights may be against
the Government they would not be sustained by the
judicial tribunals Of the land and that he has legal
remedy against any other person body corporate.
10 the opinion OF the undersigned therefore, would be
tantamoun denial OF Justice to refer the claimant to
the courts of Greece redress the establishments of
his rights and his only hope of relief to be found in the
action OF his Government.
II said that the lands in question, with the interest
that has accrued, is estimated at nearly 100000