at Marshpee, protected in the same manner the whites
are, in their religious freedom? The Indians think not, and with good
reason; and yet they cannot get redress. They have warned Mr. Fish to
leave their property; they have dismissed him as their minister, if he
ever were such, and have forbidden his using their Meeting-house, or
carrying off their wood. But he persists in holding and using their
property, as they say wrongfully, and even prohibits their having
a religious meeting in the woods, without his consent. He is, it
is stated, at this time employing men to cut and cart wood off the
plantation, for his support, and it is supposed he will thus take of
the property really belonging to the Indians, about two hundred cords
of wood the present year.

Now if this land belongs in common to the Marshpee Indians, as they
contend it does, Mr. Fish and the white men he employs, (and it is
understood he employs no others,) violate the law of 1834, and are
liable to indictment. That law says, "that no person other than
proprietors or inhabitants of said District, shall ever cut wood [upon
the common lands,] or transport the same therefrom. And every person
offending against this provision, shall be liable to indictment
therefor, and upon conviction, shall pay a fine of not less than
fifty, nor more than one hundred dollars, to the use of said
District." In this mode, by indicting the white men employed by Mr.
Fish, to cut and carry off wood, the question could be tried, which is
simply whether the fee of the parsonage is in the Indians, or whether
it is in Mr. Fish, who never had any deed of it in any way. The
parsonage was common land in 1783. Has it been legally changed since
in its title, is the question. But even in this matter, as we are
informed, the courts of justice which are open to white men, are
closed to the poor Indians. At the last session of the court in
Barnstable, the Selectmen of Marshpee complained against the white
men employed by Mr. Fish, for cutting wood on their common lands. The
District Attorney on ascertaining that the wood was taken from the
parsonage, so called, undertook to decide the whole question,
before it went to the court, as it is stated to us, and without any
examination as to Mr. Fish's title, refused to act upon the complaint.
Had the indictment been found, the question could have gone to the
Supreme Court, and been there settled. The Indians now must either
submit to be wronged unt