It should be understood that the Committee who reported the act of 1834, giving the new law to the Indians, did not decide any question touching the parsonage. They treated all the plantation as lands owned in common. It has been said that the Chairman of the Committee, Mr. Barton, had given an opinion that Mr. Fish was entitled to hold the property. This is incorrect. To obviate such an impression, Mr. Hallett, the counsel for the Indians, wrote to Mr. Barton, and received the following reply, which will fully explain the position in which the question was left by the Legislature. In the views expressed by Mr. Barton, Mr. Hallett fully concurs. Too much praise cannot be given to Mr. Barton for the zeal, patience and ability with which he discharged the duties of Chairman of the Committee. WORCESTER, JULY 1, 1834. DEAR SIR, I last evening received your favor of the 28th ult. The Committee of the Legislature, who had in charge the Marshpee business, intentionally avoided expressing any opinion in regard to the tenure by which Mr. Fish held the parsonage. In our report we merely adverted to the facts, that in 1783, Lot Nye, and several Indians granted 400 acres of the common land, "to be forever for the important purpose of propagating the Gospel in Marshpee." There were no grantees named in the deed. In 1809, the General Court confirmed this grant of a parsonage, "to be held forever for a Congregational Gospel Minister." We found Mr. Fish in possession of the parsonage, _as such a minister_. But whether by virtue of said grant, and his settlement at Marshpee he could hold the parsonage, _as a sole corporation_, we regarded it as a question of purely a judicial character, and one with which it was "not _expedient_," and might we not have added _proper_, "for the Legislature to interfere." If Mr. Fish has rights under these grants, and by virtue of his settlement, I know you will agree with me, that the Legislature can do nothing to divest him of them. And if he had no such right, we were not disposed to create them. I am entirely satisfied with the course which the Committee took in relation to the parsonage; and the circumstance that questions are now agitated in relation to it, show that in one particular, at least, the Committee acted judiciously. We left the parsonage precisely as we found it; leaving to another branch of the government the appropriate responsibility of settling all questions growing out of the grant of 1783, the confirmation of 1809, and the settlement of Mr. Fish. Could we by legislation settle those questions, it might have been our duty to do so, for the sake of the harmony of the District. But it seems to me that any such attempt would have had a tendency to create new difficulties, rather than to diminish old ones.