before it went to the court, as it is stated to us, and without any examination as to Mr. Fish’s title, refused to act upon the complaint.  Had the indictment been found, the question could have gone to the Supreme Court, and been there settled.  The Indians now must either submit to be wronged until 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 disposed to create them.  I am entirely satisfied with the course which the Committee took in relation to the parsonage; and the circumstance that questions are now agitated in relation to it, show that in one particular, at least, the Committee acted judiciously.