il some prosecuting officer will hear their
complaints, or they must apply for an injunction, to stop Mr. Fish
cutting any more of their wood. These are believed to be substantially
the facts and the law, in this case. They are left with a candid
public to consider, and to form their opinion on, if they cannot be
shown to be unfounded.

It should be understood that the Committee who reported the act of
1834, giving the new law to the Indians, did not decide any question
touching the parsonage. They treated all the plantation as lands owned
in common. It has been said that the Chairman of the Committee, Mr.
Barton, had given an opinion that Mr. Fish was entitled to hold
the property. This is incorrect. To obviate such an impression,
Mr. Hallett, the counsel for the Indians, wrote to Mr. Barton, and
received the following reply, which will fully explain the position in
which the question was left by the Legislature. In the views expressed
by Mr. Barton, Mr. Hallett fully concurs. Too much praise cannot be
given to Mr. Barton for the zeal, patience and ability with which he
discharged the duties of Chairman of the Committee.

WORCESTER, JULY 1, 1834.

DEAR SIR,

I last evening received your favor of the 28th ult. The Committee of
the Legislature, who had in charge the Marshpee business,
intentionally avoided expressing any opinion in regard to the tenure
by which Mr. Fish held the parsonage. In our report we merely
adverted to the facts, that in 1783, Lot Nye, and several Indians
granted 400 acres of the common land, "to be forever for the
important purpose of propagating the Gospel in Marshpee." There were
no grantees named in the deed. In 1809, the General Court confirmed
this grant of a parsonage, "to be held forever for a Congregational
Gospel Minister." We found Mr. Fish in possession of the parsonage,
_as such a minister_. But whether by virtue of said grant, and his
settlement at Marshpee he could hold the parsonage, _as a sole
corporation_, we regarded it as a question of purely a judicial
character, and one with which it was "not _expedient_," and might we
not have added _proper_, "for the Legislature to interfere." If Mr.
Fish has rights under these grants, and by virtue of his settlement,
I know you will agree with me, that the Legislature can do nothing
to divest him of them. And if he had no such right, we were not
dispo