
    PHINEAS PAM-TO-PEE ET AL. v. THE UNITED STATES. THE POTTAWATOMIE INDIANS v. THE UNITED STATES.
    (27 C. Cls. R., 403; 148 U. S. R., 691.)
    
      Upon both the claimants’ Appeals.
    
    The treaty 1893, providing for the removal of the Pottawatomies has a supplemental paragraph “on behalf of the chiefs and, headsmen of the united nation” in these words: “As simoe the signing of the treaty apart of the band residing on the reservations in the Territory of Michigan have requested, on account of their religious creed, permission to remove to the northern part of the peninsula of Michigan, it is agreed that in case of such removal the just proportion of all annuities payable to them under former treaties and that arising from the sale of the resei'vátion in which they now reside shall be paid to them at VArbre Croché.” In 1836, 253 Indians, who have not removed are found and paid in southern Michigan. No payment is made at L’Arfrre Croché. In 1890 Congress pass an act referring “all questions of difference with” the “Pattawatomie Indians of Michigan and Indiana.” Two parties appear. The questions involved relate to the conflicting rights of the adverse claimants and to the amounts remaining due of the various annuities.
    The court below decides:
    1. The Pottawatomie Indians Act 19th March 1890 (26 Stat. L., p. 24), recognizes the fact that claims exist on account of various treaty provisions.
    2. The court is to determine the aggregate right, leaving the distribution as the administration of a trust to the Interior Department.
    3. The supplemental paragraph attached to the Supplementary Articles 27th September, 1888 (7 Stat. L., pp., 442, 445), having been recognized fry the Senate and proclaimed fry the President as part of the treaty, must be considered as such.
    4. That the commissioners who negotiated a treaty did not sign a supplemental paragraph, does not affect its validity if the President and Senate recognized it as a part of the treatv.
    
      5. The object of the treaty 1833 was to secure the removal of the Pottawat-omies to the West; but it is too late to insist that removal and continued residence from a condition precedent to the right of those who remained in Michigan to participate in the various treaty funds.
    6. The Indians who were allowed to remain in Michigan are not entitled to any entire annuity, but only to their- “just proportion” in the ratio of those who remained to those who removed.
    7. The jurisdictional act does not authorize the court to treat perpetual annuities as ended and allow a recovery for the valuation of the same.
    The decision of the court below is affirmed on the same grounds.
   Mr. Justice Shiras

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court, April 17, 1893.  