y, and repaired at the expense of the _white_
Legislature of the State, perhaps the _whites_ may think
themselves entitled to some wear of it, and being no way fit
for '_respectable_ people,' the church and congregation
hope they may the more readily be left unmolested in their
accustomed use of it." [Page 4.] Again he says of the
complaints of the Indians, that they were forbidden to have
preaching in their School-houses. "The School-houses, built
by the munificence of the State, began to be occupied for
_Meeting-houses_, soon after their erection, and have been
more or less occupied _in this fashion_! ever since; and your
memorialist desires to affirm that _in this perversion_ of
your _liberal purpose_, he had no share whatever!"

Is this possible? Can it be a _perversion_ of buildings
erected for the mental and moral improvement of the Indians,
that religious meetings should be held there, by ministers
whom the Indians prefer to the Missionary?

The inequality in the appropriations for religious
instruction, is remarked upon by the Commissioner, Hon.
Mr. Fiske, who says in his report that if the present
appropriations are to be restricted to a Congregationalist
minister, some further provision, in accordance with religious
freedom, ought to be made for the Baptist part of the colored
people. [Page 29. No. 14.]

I regret too, the unkind allusion in the Rev. Mr. Fish's
memorial to Deacon Coombs, the oldest of the Marshpee
delegation, formerly his deacon, and the last proprietor to
leave him. He says the deacon "once walked worthy of his holy
calling." Does he mean to insinuate he does not walk worthily
now? I wish you, gentlemen, to examine Deacon Coombs, who is
present, to inquire into his manner of life, and see if you
can find a Christian with a white skin, whose heart is purer,
and whose walk is more upright, than this same Deacon Coombs.
In point of character and intelligence, he would compare
advantageously with a majority of the Selectmen in the
Commonwealth.

With the religious concerns of Marshpee, I have no wish to
interfere. I only seek to repel intimations that may operate
against their prayer for the liberties secured by the
Constitution. Neither do I stand here to defend Mr. Apes, who
is charged with being the leader of the "sedition." I onl