On the other side, opposite to their memorial for self-government, is the remonstrance of _Nathan Pocknet_ and forty-nine others, the same Nathan Pocknet, who in 1818 petitioned for the removal of the Overseership. This remonstrance was not prepared by the Indians. It came wholly from the Rev. Mr. Fish, and the Overseers. It speaks of the "unprecedented impudence" of the Indians, and mentions a "_Traverse Jury_." No one who signed it, had any voice in preparing it. It shows ignorance of the memorial of the tribe, by supposing they ask for liberty to sell their lands; and ignorance of the law, by saying that the Overseers have not power to remove nuisances from the plantation. This remonstrance is signed by fifty persons, sixteen males and thirty-four females; seventeen can write. Of the signers, _ten_ belong to Nathan Pocknet's family. Ten of the males are Proprietors, of whom two are minors, and one a person non compos. Of the non-proprietors, one is a convict, recently released from State prison, who has no right on the Plantation. Two of the Proprietors, who signed this remonstrance, (John Speen and Isaac Wickham,) have since certified that they understood it to be the petition for Mr. Fish, to retain his salary, but that they are entirely opposed to having Overseers and to the present laws. Thus it is shown that out of the whole Plantation of 229 Proprietors, but _five_ men could be induced, by all the influence of the Minister and the Overseer, to sign in favor of having the present laws continued, and but _eleven_ men out of the whole population of 312. The signers to the memorial for a change of the laws are a majority of all the men, women and children belonging to the Plantation, at home and abroad. Another document against the Indians who ask for their liberty, is the memorial of the Rev. Phineas Fish, the missionary. Of the unassuming piety, the excellent character, and the sound learning of that reverend gentleman, I cannot speak in too warm terms. I respect him as a man, and honor him as a devoted minister of the gospel. But he is not adapted to the cultivation of the field in which his labors have been cast. Until I read this memorial, I should not have believed that a severe expression could have escaped him. I regret the spirit of that memorial, and in its comparison with that of the Indians, I must say it loses in style, in dignity and in Christian temper. In this memorial, Mr. Fish urges upon the Legislature the continuance of the laws of guardianship as they now are, and especially the continuance of the benefits he derives from the property of the plantation. What are the reasons he gives for this. Do they not look exclusively to his own benefit, without regard to the wishes of the Indians?