was by resorting to the courts.
That any forcible attempt by single individuals to obtain
possession of the Meeting-house, &c. would be a trespass; that
if numbers combined for that purpose, it would constitute
a riot. I take it I hazarded no professional reputation by
giving these opinions. For you very well know, that they would
be correct, Mr. Fish being in peaceable possession of the
premises, whether he were so by seisin or disseisin, by right
or by wrong. I hope, my dear sir, that our experiment in
regard to the affairs of our Marshpee friends may yet succeed.
If not, I think we may console ourselves as one of old did:
that if Rome must fall, we are innocent.
I am, very respectfully yours,
J. BARTON.
The Legislature having thus left the question, to be decided by the
Courts, if Mr. Fish insists on holding the parsonage, the inquiry must
arise on legal principles, how was Mr. Fish settled in Marshpee, and
by what right does he, as a sole corporation, or otherwise, hold the
parsonage, as an allotment set apart forever for the support of a
Congregational minister, in Marshpee? Harvard College in which he was
then, or had been a tutor, sent him there as a missionary under
the Williams fund. The Legislature took no part whatever in the
settlement. The Overseers permitted him to take possession of the
Meeting-house and the parsonage land, so called, and it is understood
that they consented he should cut the annual growth of the wood off
the parsonage.
Pages:
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193