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

by William Apess

The principle is the same applied to the relation Mr. Fish holds to the Marshpee Indians. He was placed over them by others, and the Indians are now compelled either to lose all the benefits of their own parsonage, or to hear a man in whose doctrines they do not believe, and whom they cannot consent to take as their spiritual teacher.

Upon a full investigation into this branch of the inquiry, there seems to be no legal or equitable ground, on which Mr. Fish can claim to hold the parsonage and Meeting-house against the Proprietors, and he must therefore, be regarded as a trespasser, liable to be ejected, and the men he employs to cut and cart wood from the plantation, are liable to indictment under the new law of 1834.

The invalidity of title, is however, a still stronger ground against Mr. Fish's right of adverse occupancy, which he now holds, and a case in principle precisely like this, has been decided by the Supreme Court of Massachusetts. It occurred in 1798, before there was a reporter of the Supreme Court. Hon John Davis, United States District Judge, was counsel for the Indians, and Samuel Dexter, for the defendant. It was tried on a demurrer, before the Supreme Court in Barnstable, upon an action of ejectment, Proprietors of Marshpee, vs. Ebenezer Crocker. Judge Paine delivered the opinion of the Court in favor of the Indians. Judge Benjamin Whitman of Boston, was also, we believe, concerned in the cause. The substance of the case, as stated by Judge Davis and Judge Whitman, was thus:

Ebenezer Crocker of Cotuet, had furnished an Indian woman, (known as the Indian Queen,) with supplies for many years. She occupied and claimed in severalty as her own, a valuable tract of about 200 acres of land on the Marshpee Plantation, called the neck, of which tract she gave a deed in fee, some time before her death, to said Crocker, in consideration of the support he had given her. The consideration at that time, was not very greatly disproportioned to the value of the land. After her death, she having left no heirs, the grantee, Mr. Crocker, who was an influential member of the General Court, petitioned that body and procured a full confirmation of the deed to him, in the same manner the General Court in 1809, confirmed the parsonage deed of 1783, except that there was not so long a time intervening between Mr. Crocker's receiving the deed from the Indian Queen in her life time, and its full confirmation by the General Court after her death.

This took place previous to the law of 1788, putting the Indians under guardianship, when either the law of 1693 or the charter of 1763, was in force.[3] When the white Overseers came in, in 1798, they found Crocker in possession of this land, under the above title, and they employed Judge John Davis, as counsel, to vacate the deed and the act of the General Court. Judge Davis brought an action of ejectment against Crocker, (not in the name of the Overseers,) but in the name of the Proprietors of Marshpee, whose property he claimed, was as tenants in common, on the ground that the old Queen, though she occupied it in severalty during her life, could not, as one tenant in common, convey the interest of her co-tenants in common. It was tried in the Supreme Court, and the deed was set aside, for insufficiency of title. This insufficiency of title vitiated the conveyance on the ground that the old Queen had no power to convey when she made the deed, and that the General Court had no power to make good, by a resolve, a title originally invalid.

Crocker also set up the claim of quiet possession, for thirty years, which it was supposed would secure the title; but the Court decided that this gave no title, and the land was restored to the Indians, and now forms a portion of their common land. Mr. Crocker of course, lost all he had furnished to the old Queen, and in this respect, his case was harder than it would be, were Mr. Fish dispossessed of the parsonage, after enjoying it for twenty-four years, without any title thereto. It would he difficult for any lawyer to show why Crocker's deed confirmed by the General Court, should have been set aside in 1798, and Lot Nye's deed, of the parsonage, be held valid in 1834.

On referring to my minutes of the trial of the petition of the Indians, for their liberty, in 1834, before a Committee of the Legislature, I find the following facts stated by Rev. Phineas Fish, who was a witness before that Committee. They will throw some light on the subject of inquiry.

Rev. Phineas Fish, sworn. Testifies that he was ordained at Marshpee in 1811. Was invited there by the Overseers of Marshpee. There were five persons of color belonging to the church, and sixteen whites. At the ordination, a white man rose up and protested against it. He said all were not satisfied. It was not a vote of the Indians by which he was settled, and no vote of the church was taken. Five Indians had expressed a wish that he would remain. He received two-thirds of the Williams fund, from Harvard College. It had varied from 390 to 433 dollars. Received about 150 dollars per year from the wood-land of the parsonage. Has built a dwelling house, and made improvements on an acre and a half of land of the plantation, of which he holds a deed from the Overseers, confirmed by a resolve of the General Court.

Mr. Gideon Hawley testified that the Meeting-house was built by the funds of the English Society for propagating the gospel, before 1757, when his father was sent as a missionary to the Indians, by the London Missionary Society. In 1817, five hundred dollars were granted on petition of the Indians, as a donation by the Legislature, to repair the church for the Marshpee Indians. After Mr. Fish had preached in Marshpee, 5 Indians came to Mr. Hawley and expressed a wish he would stay with them. There was no vote and no record. Before his father came to Marshpee, in 1757, Bryant, an Indian preacher, used to preach to the Indians, in the Meeting-house. The missionary, (Mr. Hawley,) received one hundred dollars annually, from Harvard College, of the Williams fund. In 1778, the Indians gave the missionary, Mr. Hawley, two hundred acres of land, which witness inherits. [The validity of this title is not disputed.]

Hon. Charles Marston, (one of the Overseers,) testified that Mr. Fish had a Sunday School, principally composed of white children. He did not recollect ever seeing more than eight colored children in it. There were more whites. The Overseers paid the school mistress seven and sixpence a week, and she board herself. To an Indian, who kept school in winter, were paid twelve and nineteen dollars a month. The whites who attend Mr. Fish's meeting, never pay any thing to him or the church. When the tax was required in parishes, many whites got rid of their tax by attending Mr. Fish's meeting. There was always twice as many whites as blacks in the society. Last summer, (1833,) he counted eighteen colored persons, and twice that number of whites. Mr. Dwight, one of the Committee, asked, if so many whites being there, did not tend to discourage the Indians from being interested in the meeting? Mr. Marston thought it might.