no way fit for ‘respectable people,’ the church and congregation hope they may the more readily be left unmolested in their accustomed use of it.” [Page 4.] Again he says of the complaints of the Indians, that they were forbidden to have preaching in their School-houses.  “The School-houses, built by the munificence of the State, began to be occupied for Meeting-houses, soon after their erection, and have been more or less occupied in this fashion! ever since; and your memorialist desires to affirm that in this perversion of your liberal purpose, he had no share whatever!”

Is this possible?  Can it be a perversion of buildings erected for the mental and moral improvement of the Indians, that religious meetings should be held there, by ministers whom the Indians prefer to the Missionary?

The inequality in the appropriations for religious instruction, is remarked upon by the Commissioner, Hon. Mr. Fiske, who says in his report that if the present appropriations are to be restricted to a Congregationalist minister, some further provision, in accordance with religious freedom, ought to be made for the Baptist part of the colored people. [Page 29.  No. 14.]

I regret too, the unkind allusion in the Rev. Mr. Fish’s memorial to Deacon Coombs, the oldest of the Marshpee delegation, formerly his deacon, and the last proprietor to leave him.  He says the deacon “once walked worthy of his holy calling.”  Does he mean to insinuate he does not walk worthily now?  I wish you, gentlemen, to examine Deacon Coombs, who is present, to inquire into his manner of life, and see if you can find a Christian with a white skin, whose heart is purer, and whose walk is more upright, than this same Deacon Coombs.  In point of character and intelligence, he would compare advantageously with a majority of the Selectmen in the Commonwealth.

With the religious concerns of Marshpee, I have no wish to interfere.  I only seek to repel intimations that may operate against their prayer for the liberties secured by the Constitution.  Neither do I stand here to defend Mr. Apes, who is charged with being the leader of the “sedition.”  I only ask you to look at the historical evidence of the existence of discontent with the laws, ever since 1693, and ask if Mr. Apes has been the author of this discontent.  Let me remind you also, of the fable of the Huntsman and the Lion, when the former boasted of the superiority of man, and to prove it pointed to a statue of one of the old heroes, standing upon a prostrate lion.  The reply of the noble beast was, “there are no carvers among the lions; if there were, for one man standing upon a lion, you would have twenty men torn to pieces by lions.”  Gentlemen, by depressing the Indians, our laws have taken care that they should have no carvers.  The whites have done all the carving for them, and have always placed them undermost.