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

by William Apess

Deacon Isaac Coombs, who had been twenty years a deacon in Mr. Fish's church, changed his sentiments, and was baptized by immersion. He testified before the Committee of the Legislature, that when he told Mr. Fish he had been baptized again, Mr. Fish said, "that was rank poison, and that he should expect some dreadful judgment would befal me." Deacon Coombs, who is sixty years old, testified also, that the Meeting-house was built for the use of the Indians. No one could remember when it was built. There was but one colored male church member, when Mr. Fish came to Marshpee, in 1811. He further stated to the Committee that his family got discouraged going to Mr. Fish's meeting, from the preference he gave to the whites. He did not come to see his family, and lost his influence by taking part with the guardians against the Indians. There was a difficulty in Mr. Fish's meeting about the singing. The colored people were put back, and the whites took the lead. Mr. Fish has 50 or 60 acres of pasture, East of the river, besides the parsonage.

* * * * *

I have thus given my views of the law and the facts, touching the parsonage in Marshpee, in order that the Indians and their Selectmen who have desired legal advice on the subject, may fully understand their rights. I am confident they will never attempt to obtain those rights, except in a legal and peaceable way. The Courts at Barnstable, it is said, are closed to them, in the way pointed out by the law, the District Attorney refusing to prosecute the men who cut wood on the parsonage. I invite the attention of that acute and learned officer, Charles H. Warren, Esq. to the points made in this opinion, well assured that if it can be refuted by any professional gentleman, it can be done by him. If he cannot do so, I hope he will permit the title of the parsonage to be brought before the Court, under an indictment for cutting wood contrary to the act of 1834. I regret the necessity of presenting arguments to dispossess Mr. Fish of what he doubtless supposes be lawfully holds; but I am looking for the rights and the property of the Indians, and am not at liberty to consult personal feelings, that would certainly induce me to favor the Rev. Mr. Fish, as soon as any man in his situation. I think it as important to him as to the Indians, that the title to the parsonage should be settled, for there will be feuds, and divisions, and strifes, as long as that property remains as it now is, wrongfully taken and withheld from the Indians, to support an "ESTABLISHED CHURCH," in Marshpee. With this view I have proposed to Mr. Fish, in behalf of the Indians, to make up an amicable suit, before the Supreme Court, and obtain their opinion, and the parties be governed by it. The Indians are ready to submit it to such an arbitration. Mr. Fish declines. The only other remedy is an injunction in chancery, to stop the cutting of wood. The Indians are not well able to bear the expense, at present, or this course would be taken to recover their property. Until some legal decision is had, Mr. Fish cannot but see, from an examination of the legal grounds set forth herein, that there are strong reasons for regarding him as holding in his possession that which rightfully belongs to another. The public will not be satisfied, until the rights of the Indians are fully secured. I have always been desirous that Mr. Fish should not be disturbed in his house lot, and for my own part, it would give me pleasure, should the Indians, immediately, on getting legal possession of their own parsonage, unanimously invite him to settle over them. But so long as he withholds from them their property, it cannot be expected that they should receive him as their spiritual teacher. It is in direct violation of the Constitution and of religious freedom.

BENJAMIN F. HALLETT, Counsel for the Marshpee Indians. Boston, May, 20, 1835.

The Selectmen of Marshpee District, are at liberty to make such use of the foregoing, as they think proper.

[Footnote 1: He is not an Indian, nor an original proprietor.]

[Footnote 2: This was Mr. Alvin Crocker, who had formerly enjoyed more benefits from the Plantation, than he does under the new law.]

[Footnote 3: In June, 1763, the Governor and Council appointed Thomas Smith, Isaac Hinckley and Gideon Hawley, "pursuant to an act empowering them to appoint certain persons to have the inspection of the Plantation of Marshpee.">[

CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS.

If, in the course of this little volume, I have been obliged to use language that seems harsh, I beg my readers to remember that it was in defence of the character of the people under my spiritual charge and of my own. The Marshpees have been reviled and misrepresented in the public prints, as much more indolent, ignorant, and degraded than they really are, and it was necessary, for their future welfare, as it depends in no small degree upon the good opinion of their white brethren, to state the real truth of the case, which could not be done in gentle terms. The causes which have retarded our improvement could not be explained without naming the individuals who have been the willing instruments to enforce them.