
    JOHNSON BLACKFEATHER, PRINCIPAL CHIEF OF THE SHAWNEE INDIANS, v. THE UNITED STATES.
    [28 C. Cls. R., 447; 155 U. S. R., 180.]
    
      On the defendants’ Appeal.
    
    This case was brought under a special act conferring jurisdiction. It is to recover unpaid balances of treaty funds and involves only ques- • tions of construction of the treaties of 1825, 1831.
    Tbe court below decides:
    The treaty with the Shawnees, 1825 (7 Stat L., p. 284), and that of 1831 (7 id., p. 355), requires the United ¿States to “support and, Jceep a blacksmith for the term of five years, or as long as the President may deem it advisable.” The President having kept a blacksmith there more than five years, his action bound the United States, and the claimants can not be charged with the cost of it.
    The treaty, 1831 (article 5), provides for an advance to the Shawnees for building purposes of $13,000, “to be reimbursed from the sales of the lands herein ceded.” This was simply a loan and must be charged against the Shawnees, though the United States ultimately received a benefit from the improvements made with the fu.nd.
    The treaty of 1831 (article 7) requires the United States to sell the Ohio lands of the Shawnees at “publie sale to the highest bidder,” and requires the sales to be made “in the manner of selling the public land.” This brought'the sales within the restriction of tne land laws Chen making $2 the minimum price per acre.
    The treaty, 1831 (article 13), provides for the retention of a fund in the hands of the Government to bear the expenses of the Shawnees in Michigan “should they ever wish to follow.” The money being still held for this contingency, the- claimants are not entitled to be credited with it.
    The treaty of 1831 contained a complete bargain by which the Indians surrendered their Ohio lands in consideration of 100,000 acres of land in the West, etc. This part of the consideration having failed, the payment of $66,246.23 under the act March 3, 1863 (10 Stat. L., p. 236), was in substitution thereof.
    
      The act 1st April, 1880 (21 Stat. L., p. 70), which provides for the deposit of Indian trust funds in the Treasury, and directs the payment of interest thereon, does not create a right to interest where none is assured by treaty.
    Where a balance now found by the court, should have been paid by the United States into an interest-bearing- treaty fund (treaty of 1831, article 7), interest may be recovered.
    Under the treaty of 1854 (10 Stat. L., p. 1053), “ The portions of orphan children shall he appropriated by the President in the manner deemed by him best for their interest,.’’ This makes the United States responsible for the money of orphans misapplied or lost. But the Shawnees as a tribe have no claim to the money which belongs and is decreed to be paid to the.individual orphan children or their representative.
    The decision of the court below is reversed as to article 7 of the treaty in regard to the amount allowed, on the ground that the attention of the court below had not been called to the act 24th April, 1820, fixing the statutory price of the public lands at $1.25 per acre instead of $2 per acre, the amount allowed by the court as fixed by prior statutes.
    It is also reversed as to an allowance of $10,506.39, on the ground that the record was defective in not showing how much of the orphan fund was embezzled by the Indian superintendent. Upon all other points the decision was affirmed.
   Mr. Justice Brown

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court, November 19, 1894.  