Indian Nullification of the Unconstitutional Laws of Massachusetts Relative to the Marshpee Tribe / Or, the Pretended Riot Explained

by William Apess

Mr. Allen of Pembroke, hoped the motion to read the petition would not prevail. We should have in a few days a statement from the Governor and Council, and he hoped nothing would be done until that was received, to prejudice the House.

Mr. Cushing of Dorchester, was not aware that any objections could be made to the reading of the petition, which he considered as a matter of course; nor could he see how a knowledge of the matter could prejudice the House. He presumed the House would not take upon itself to refuse to hear the petition of the humblest individual, and he did not fear that they could not control their minds so far as to be ready to give a fair hearing to the other side. The intimation that some document was to come from another source, did not go at all to show that the petition ought not to be read. Whether the statement which gentlemen said was to be made, was in aid or explanation of the petition did not appear, but the subject was before the House, and ought to receive the attention due to it.

Mr. Lucas of Plymouth, said (as far as we could hear him) that the difficulty in the Marshpee tribe had been caused by an itinerant preacher, who went there and urged them to declare their independence. They proceeded to extremities, and the Governor and Council sent a commissioner to examine the affair, and he made a report to the Council, and until that was heard, he hoped nothing would be heard from the Indians. It ought first to come before the House. The petition originated no doubt, from the itinerant preacher, who had been pouring into their ears discontent until they had a riot, and the rioters were prosecuted with the preacher among them, and he was convicted and imprisoned. Whether any of the petitioners were among those rioters or not, he did not know.

Mr. Allen of Pembroke, said he had not heard the gentleman from Plymouth. It was not his wish to prevent the petitioners being heard at a proper time, but he thought the House ought to hear the other side, before any course was taken.

Mr. Robinson of Marblehead, hoped that the attempt would not be persisted in, to withhold from these Indians the common indulgence of having their petition read.

Mr. Loring of Hingham, understood that this was the same petition which went before the Governor and Council, [Mr. L. was misinformed; It is a different petition,] and as it was very long, it would take up time unnecessarily to read it. He hoped it would be laid on the table.

Mr. Allen of Worcester, thought those who opposed the reading were in fact increasing the Importance of the petition by that course. If the House should refuse to hear it read, a course he did not remember had ever been adopted toward any respectful petition, from any quarter, it would become a subject of much more speculation than if it took the ordinary course.

Mr. H. Lincoln of Boston, was surprised to hear an objection raised to the reading of this petition. It was due to the character of the House, and to our native brethren the petitioners, whose agents were here on the floor, that they should be heard, and heard patiently. He hoped that out of respect to ourselves, and from justice to the petitioners, their petition would find every favor, which in justice ought to be extended to it.

Mr. Swift of Nantucket, again urged that the petition ought not to be read, until the report from the Governor and Council was first heard.

Mr. Chapman.—The petitioners have a constitutional right to be heard. I know not of what value that provision is which gives a right to petition, if the House can refuse to hear the petition. They do not ask for action, but to be heard. It can be read and laid on the table. So long as I hold a seat in this House, my hand shall be raised to give a hearing to the humblest individual who presents a petition for redress of grievances.