We left the parsonage precisely as we found it; leaving to another branch of the government the appropriate responsibility of settling all questions growing out of the grant of 1783, the confirmation of 1809, and the settlement of Mr. Fish.  Could we by legislation settle those questions, it might have been our duty to do so, for the sake of the harmony of the District.  But it seems to me that any such attempt would have had a tendency to create new difficulties, rather than to diminish old ones.

A word in regard to my advice to Mr. Fish.  I received a letter from Mr. Fish some time since, in which he expressed some apprehensions that an attempt would be made by the natives to take possession of the Meeting-house, parsonage, &c.  His letter enclosed rather a singular communication, signed by the Selectmen of Marshpee.  I did not keep a copy of my answer to Mr. Fish, but recollect distinctly the substance of it.  I alluded to the authority of the Legislature in the premises as I have above.  That they intended to leave the parsonage as they found it, without undertaking to limit or modify the effect of former acts.  That the appropriate mode for the natives to ascertain their rights to, or to obtain possession of, the parsonage, &c. was by resorting to the courts.  That any forcible attempt by single individuals to obtain possession of the Meeting-house, &c. would be a trespass; that if numbers combined for that purpose, it would constitute a riot.  I take it I hazarded no professional reputation by giving these opinions.  For you very well know, that they would be correct, Mr. Fish being in peaceable possession of the premises, whether he were so by seisin or disseisin, by right or by wrong.  I hope, my dear sir, that our experiment in regard to the affairs of our Marshpee friends may yet succeed.  If not, I think we may console ourselves as one of old did:  that if Rome must fall, we are innocent.

    I am, very respectfully yours,
        J. BARTON.

The Legislature having thus left the question, to be decided by the Courts, if Mr. Fish insists on holding the parsonage, the inquiry must arise on legal principles, how was Mr. Fish settled in Marshpee, and by what right does he, as a sole corporation, or otherwise, hold the parsonage, as an allotment set apart forever for the support of a Congregational minister, in Marshpee?  Harvard College in which he was then, or had been a tutor, sent him there as a missionary under the Williams fund.  The Legislature took no part whatever in the settlement.  The Overseers permitted him to take possession of the Meeting-house and the parsonage land, so called, and it is understood that they consented he should cut the annual growth of the wood off the parsonage.  But even admitting that the Overseers could so dispose of the property of the Indians, for promoting a particular religious worship in Marshpee, (which is explicitly denied,) could they convey any