The dedication, or whatever it may be called, of Marshpee parsonage, was made by Lot Nye, &c. in 1783, and confirmed in 1809, by the General Court.  Mr. Fish did not become a minister in Marshpee, until 1811.  Whoever settled him there, for the Indians did not, made no stipulation as to the income of the parsonage, which could bind the Plantation.  The society only, could make such stipulation, and they did not act in the premises.  The Overseers could make no stipulation either to bind the parish or the proprietors, because their power only extended to giving a lease of land not exceeding two years.  In the case of Thompson vs. the Catholic-Congregational Society in Rehoboth, (5th Pickering, 469,) it was settled that where there was a ministerial fund in a parish, and the society settled a minister stipulating to pay him a salary, without taking any notice of the income of the fund, he must be considered as accepting the salary as a full compensation, and the society are entitled to the fund.  Harvard College settled Mr. Fish in Marshpee, and agreed to pay him about five hundred dollars, or two-thirds the proceeds of the Williams fund.  The society to which Mr. Fish was sent to preach, took no notice of the parsonage, nor did the Proprietors of Marshpee, hence Mr. Fish cannot hold the proceeds of the parsonage by right of succession, or by stipulation, either from the society or the Marshpee Proprietors, and therefore the Proprietors of Marshpee are entitled to the parsonage.

There is one other consideration that might legally deprive Mr. Fish of his rights in the parsonage, even if he acquired any by the transaction in 1811, which is denied.  When he went to Marshpee, and first preached there, he was of the Unitarian faith, and so continued some time.  Subsequently, (and most undoubtedly from high conscientious motives,) he became Orthodox in his creed, and has remained so ever since. [This fact has been named by the President of Harvard College, as one reason why the Williams fund has continued to be diverted from its proper use; the delicacy Harvard College felt at dismissing Mr. Fish, lest it should be ascribed to persecution, for his change of sentiments from Unitarian to Orthodox.]

But if Mr. Fish claims to hold the parsonage by the “laws,” he must be governed by the decision of the Court in the celebrated case of Burr, vs. the first parish in Sandwich.  Mr. Burr was settled an Unitarian, and became Orthodox, and this the Supreme Court decided was just cause for the parish to dismiss him.  Chief Justice Parsons, said in that case, that “according to the almost immemorial usage of Congregational churches, before the parish settle a minister, he preaches with them as a candidate for settlement, with the intent of declaring his religious faith, and if he is afterwards settled, it is understood that the greater part of the parish and church agree in his religious sentiments and opinions.  If afterwards the minister adopts a new system of divinity, the parish retaining their former religious belief, so that the minister would not have been settled on his present system, in our opinion the parish have good cause to complain.”  On this ground the Court decided that Mr. Burr had forfeited his settlement.