1920. 47 L. ed. 532, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 478; Marchie Tiger v. Western Invest. Co. 221 U. S. 286, 55 L. ed. 738, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 578; Perrin v. United States, 232 U. S. 478-486, 58 L. ed. 691-695, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 387; Johnson v. Gearlds, 234 U. S. 422, 58 L. ed. 1383, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 794; Philadelphia & T. R. Co. v. Stimpson, 14 Pet. 448-458, 10 L. ed. 535-540; Bouldin v. Massie, 7 Wheat. 122, 5 L. ed. 414; Campbell v. Gordon, 6 Cranch, 176-182, 3 L. ed. 190-192; Cover v. Manaway, 115 Pa. 338, 2 Am. St. Rep. 552, 8 Atl. 393; Rollins v. United States, 23 Ct. Cl. 122; Chitty, Bills, 642A; Thurman v. Cameron, 24 Wend. 87; Rhoades v. Selin, 4 Wash. C. C. 718, Fed. Cas. No. 11,740; Willink v. Miles, 1 Pet. C. C. 429, Fed. Cas. No. 17,768; Riggs v. Tayloe, 9 Wheat. 483, 6 L. ed. 140; De Lane v. Moore, 14 How. 253, 14 L. ed. 409; Palmer v. Logan, 4 Ill. 56; 25 Cyc. 1625; Cornett v. Williams, 20 Wall. 226, 22 L. ed. 254; Bank of United States v. Dandridge, 12 Wheat. 70, 6 L. ed. 554; United States v. Adams (United States v. Child) 9 Wall. 661, 19 L. ed. 809; United States v. Driscoll, 131 U. S. clix, Appx., and 24 L. ed. 596; Mahan v. United States, 14 Wall. 109, 20 L. ed. 764; United States v. Adams, 9 Wall. 554, 19 L. ed. 584; The Francis Wright, 105 U. S. 381, 26 L. ed. 1100; United States v. Pugh, 99 U. S. 265, 25 L. ed. 322. Assistant Attorney General Thompson argued the cause on original argument, and, with Mr. George M. Anderson, filed a brief for appellees: When the contracts of employment were entered into between Winton and his associates and individual Mississippi Choctaws, living in Mississippi, the Indians were and had been, for over a half a century, citizens of the United States and of the state of Mississippi, with all the rights, privileges, and immunities possessed by white citizens of that state, and the government had no supervision or control over them or their contracts. Ke-tuc-e-mun-quah v. McClure, 122 Ind. 541, 7 L.R.A. 782, 23 N. E. 1080; Den ex dem. Murray v. Hoboken Land Improv. Co. 18 How. 272, 276, 15 L. ed. 372, 374; Cooley, Const. Law, 3d ed. 244; Wilson v. Wall, 6 Wall. 83, 18 L. ed. 727; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 28 L. ed. 643, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 41; Felix v. Patrick, 145 U. S. 332, 36 L. ed. 726, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 862; Stephens v. Cherokee Nation, 174 U. S. 445, 449, 43 L. ed. 1041, 1042, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 722; Green v. Menominee Tribe, 233 U. S. 558, 568, 58 L. ed. 1093, 1097, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 706. The liability on a quantum meruit rests Where a party, competent to act, en- Dermott v. Jones (Ingle v. Jones) 2 Wall. 7, 17 L. ed. 764; The Harriman, 9 Wall. 161, 172, 19 L. ed. 629, 633; Florida R. Co. v. Smith, 21 Wall. 255, 22 L. ed. 513. Assistant Attorney General Thompson and Solicitor General King also filed a brief for appellees: If any facts material to the decision of the case have been requested to be found, and have not been acted upon by the court of claims, this court will remand the record with directions to the lower court to determine whether or not such facts are sustained by the evidence. United States v. Adams (United States v. Child) 9 Wall. 661, 19 L. ed. 808; United States v. Driscoll, 131 U. S. clix, Appx. and 24 L. ed. 596; Ripley v. United States, 220 U. S. 491, 55 L. ed. 557, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 478, 222 U. S. 144, 56 L. ed. 131, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 60. Appellants have failed to point out such facts. The lower court has passed upon all the facts presented bearing upon the This court has alleged services rendered by the appellants, a function peculiarly within the province of that court. frequently said that, under such circumstances, it will not go behind the findings of said court. McClure v. United States, 116 U. S. 145, 29 L. ed. 572, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 321; District of Columbia v. Barnes, 197 U. S. 146, 150, 49 L. ed. 699, 700, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 401; Sisseton & W. Bands of Sioux Indians v. United States, 208 U. S. 561, 687 566, 52 L. ed. 621, 623, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1 from "any funds now or hereafter due 352. Assistant Attorney General Davis argued the cause for appellees on reargument. Mr. Justice Pitney delivered the opin ion of the court: These are appeals from a judgment of the court of claims rejecting claims for alleged services rendered and expenses incurred in the matter of the claims of the Mississippi Choctaws to citizenship in the Choctaw Nation. The decision of the court of claims is reported in 51 Ct. Cl. 284. In the Winton Case (No. 6), a request for additional findings, equivalent to an application for rehearing, was denied. 52 Ct. Cl. 90. The appeals were taken under § 182, Judicial Code. The jurisdiction of the court below arose under an Act of April 26, 1906 (chap. 1876, § 9, 34 Stat. at L. 137, 140, 3 Fed. Stat. Anno. 2d ed. pp. 861, 866), and an [376] amendatory provision in the Act of May 29, 1908 (chap. 216, § 27, 35 Stat. at L. 444, 457). The former provided: "That the court of claims is hereby authorized and directed to hear, consider, and adjudicate the claims against the Mississippi Choctaws of the estate of Charles F. Winton, deceased, his associates and assigns, for services rendered and expenses incurred in the matter of the claims of the Mississippi Choctaws to citizenship in the Choctaw Nation, and to render judgment thereon on the principle of quantum meruit, in such amount or amounts as may appear equitable or justly due therefor, which judgment, if any, shall be paid from any funds now or hereafter due such Choctaws by the United States. Notice of such suit shall be served on the governor of the Choctaw Nation, and the Attorney General shall appear and defend the said suit on behalf of said Choc taws." The original petition was filed October 11, 1906, by Wirt K. Winton, one of the heirs at law of Charles F. Winton, in behalf of himself and the other heirs, and also in behalf of the associates and assigns of Charles F. Winton. Thereafter it was provided by the amendatory act that the court be authorized and directed to hear, consider, and adjudicate claims of like character on the part of William N. Vernon, J. S. Bounds, and Chester Howe, their associates or assigns, and render judgment on the same principle of quantum meruit; the judgment, if any, to be paid such Choctaws as individuals by the United States;" Vernon, Bounds, and Howe were authorized to intervene in the pending suit of the estate of Winton, and it was "provided further, That the lands allotted to the Mississippi Choctaws are hereby declared subject to a lien to the extent of the claims of the said Winton and of the other plaintiffs authorized by Congress to sue the said defendants, subject to the final judgment of the court of claims in the said case. Notice of such suit or intervention shall [377] be served on the governor of the Choctaw Nation, and the Attorney General shall appear and defend the said suit on behalf of the said Choc taws." Thereafter a second amended petition was filed by Wirt K. Winton, as administrator of the estate of Charles F. Winton, deceased, in behalf of the estate of Winton, and also of Winton's associates and assigns. In this petition James K. Jones, administrator of James K. Jones, deceased, and Robert L. Owen, in his own behalf, joined. Intervening petitions were filed by William N. Vernon; Chester Howe, who died pending suit, and in whose place his administratrix, Katie A. Howe, was substituted; and several others. As shown by the findings, the claim of Winton and associates arose as follows: By article 3 of the Treaty of September 27, 1830 (7 Stat. at L. 333), known as the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek, the United States the entire country the Choctaw Nation of Indians ceded to possessed by them east of the Mississippi river, and agreed to remove beyond the Mississippi during the three years fact that some of the Choctaws prenext succeeding. But, in view of the ferred not to move, it was provided in article 14 that each head of a family who desired to remain and become a citizen of the States should be permitted to do so, and should thereupon be entitled to a reservation of one section of land, with an additional half section for each unmarried child living with him, over ten years of age, and a quarter they resided upon said lands, intending section for each child under ten. If to become citizens of the States, for five years after the ratification of the treaty, a grant in fee simple should issue; and it was further provided: "Persons who claim under this article shall not lose the privilege of a Choctaw citizen, but, if they ever remove, are not to be entitled to any portion of the Choctaw annuity." By another, Choctaw Nation. In 1891 a commission article (19) reservations were provided was provided for and funds appropriatfor certain prominent Choctaws by ed by the Choctaw Council for the rename, [378] and for limited numbers of moval and subsistence of Mississippi heads of families and captains. Choctaws to the nation, and during that year 181 were removed and admitted to citizenship. By Act of March 3, 1893 (chap. 209, § 16, 27 Stat. at L. 612, 645), Congress created the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes, familiarly known as the Dawes Commission, with the object of procuring through negotiation the extinguishment of the national or tribal title to the lands of those tribes in the Indian Territory, either by their cession to the United States or allotment in severalty among the Indians, with a view to the ultimate creation of a state. By Act of June 10, 1896 (chap. 398, 29 Stat. at L. 321, 339, 340), the commission was directed to make a complete roll of citizenship of each of the Five Civilized Tribes, and applicants for enrolment were to make application to the commission within three months from The mixed-blood Choctaws who elected to remain in Mississippi were provided for under article 19, while the full bloods who remained and elected to become citizens of the state were provided for under article 14; hence, full-blood Mississippi Choctaws have always been called "14th article claimants." Choctaws who remained in Mississippi under that article adopted the dress, habits, customs, and manner of living of the white citizens of the state. They had no tribal or band organization or laws of their own, but were subject to the laws of the state. They did not live upon any reservation, nor did the government exercise supervision or control over them. No funds were appropriated for their support, though much land was given to them. Neither the Indian Office nor the Department of the Interior assumed or exercised jurisdiction the passage of the act, and have the over them, and they never recognized them either individually or as bands, but regarded them as citizens of the state of Mississippi, and the Department held it had no authority to approve contracts made with them. Pending the negotiation of the treaty, the legislature of the state of Mississippi passed an act, January 19, 1830, abolishing the tribal customs of Indians not recognized by the common law or the law of the state, making them citizens of the state, with the same rights, immunities, and privileges as free white persons, extending over them the laws of the state, validating tribal marriages, and abolishing the tribal offices and posts of power. Recognition of their citizenship was afterwards embodied in the state Constitution. The right of the 14th article Mississippi Choctaws to citizenship in the parent tribe appears to have been recognized at one time by the Choctaw Nation west, which had removed to Indian Territory pursuant to the treaty. [379] On December 24, 1889, the Nation, through its legislature, memorialized Congress, reciting that there were "large numbers of Choctaws yet in the states of Mississippi and Louisiana who are entitled to all the rights and privileges of citizenship in the Choctaw Nation," and requesting the United States government to make provision for the emigration of these Choctaws from said states to the right of appeal from its decision to the "United States district court" (construed by this court, in Stephens v. Cherokee Nation, 174 Ú. S. 445, 476, 477, 43 L. ed. 1041, 1052, 1053, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 722, to mean the United States court in the Indian Territory). At this time the full-blood Mississippi Choctaws were extremely poor, living in insanitary conditions, and working at manual labor for daily wages. Their children were not permitted to attend schools provided for the whites, and they were denied all social and political privileges. As already appears, they were receiving neither care nor attention from the Indian Office or the Department of the [380] Interior; and they were so far overlooked by the Dawes Commission that the time limited by the act just mentioned expired without their being included in the enrolment. The activities of Winton and associates for which recovery is asked date from this point. Soon after the passage of the Act of June 10, 1896, Messrs. Owen and Winton entered into an agreement under which the latter was to proceed to Mississippi and procure contracts with such Indians as might be entitled to participate in any distribution of lands or moneys of the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations, arranging to secure evidence, powers of attorney, and contracts, as prescribed by Mr. Owen; Owen was to prepare the neces In December, 1896, Winton presented to Congress a memorial in behalf of Jack Amos and other full-blood Mississippi Choctaws, asking that their rights under article 14 of the Treaty of 1830 be accorded to them, and that they be provided for by enrolment either by the [382] Dawes Commission or by a special agent under the direction of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs. In January, 1897, a second memorial in behalf of Jack Amos and 246 other full-blood Mississippi Choctaws, being heads of families, was presented to Congress through Winton, asking that they be enrolled so as to participate in the proposed allotment of Choctaw lands in Indian Territory; and setting up that, by the true construction of article 14 of the Treaty of 1830, when viewed in connection with other treaties and laws and the history of the Choctaw tribe, the Mississippi Choctaws were entitled to remain in Mississippi as United States citizens, and still retain the rights of a Choctaw citizen, except as to a participation in the annuity. sary forms and represent the claims of Choctaws resided, calling his attention to the Indians before the proper officers of the possible rights of such Choctaws to the United States or Indian govern- participate in the partition of the lands ments, with the assistance and co-oper- of the Choctaw Nation, at the same time ation of Winton; Winton to receive one submitting to him a copy of the Danhalf of the net proceeds of the contracts. cing Rabbit Creek Treaty, and calling his A supplementary agreement between the attention to article 14. This was the same parties provided in terms that first time the matter had been called to Owen should have a half interest in the the attention of Mr. Williams. Therecontracts, and, in the event of accident after, and until March 4, 1903, when he to Winton, should take them up as at- ceased to represent that district, he was torney in Winton's place. Immediately active in all matters of legislation conthereafter Winton proceeded to Missis- cerning the Mississippi Choctaws. sippi, and, during the year 1896 and the years following, procured approximately 1,000 contracts with full-blood Mississippi Choctaws, some in the name of Winton, some in the name of Owen, by the terms of which Winton and Owen agreed to use their best efforts to secure the rights of citizenship for said Mississippi Choctaws, as members of the Choctaw Nation, in the lands and funds of said tribe, for a fee of one half the net interest of each allottee in any allotment thereafter secured. These contracts were subsequently abandoned by Owen and Winton because void and unenforceable under the Acts of June 28, 1898, and May 31, 1900, referred to below, and new contracts were thereafter taken, principally in the name of Charles S. Daley, but in behalf [381] of Owen and Winton, with whom Daley was associated. These contracts recognized the previous services of Winton and associates as beneficial to the Indians, employed Daley and associates, including Winton and associates, as attorneys to look out for, protect, defend, and secure the interest of the Indians in the lands in Indian Territory to which they might be entitled as Mississippi Choctaws, or as members of the Choctaw Nation, and to procure the recognition of their rights in said lands and in and to any funds arising from the Choctaw-Chickasaw lands, and provided that, as compensation for all services rendered and to be rendered, the attorneys should receive a sum of money equal to one half of the value of the net recovery, based upon the actual value of the lands recovered. They seem to have contained other provisions looking to the sale or encumbrance, in part, at least, of the lands secured for the Indians. The validity of these contracts has not been discussed. Early in 1897 Mr. Owen spoke to Hon. John Sharp Williams, then Representative in Congress from the Fifth Congressional District of Mississippi, wherein practically all full-blood Mississippi In September, 1897, Winton presented a third memorial of like purport to the Secretary of the Interior. Prior to the presentation of the first of these memorials, and in September or October, 1896, Mr. Owen appeared before the Dawes Commission in behalf of Jack Amos and ninety-seven other fullblood Choctaws residing in Mississippi, and attempted to secure their enrolment under the Act of June 10, 1896. The commission refused, on the ground that they were not resident in the Indian Territory. Owen appealed to the United States court for the central district of Indian Territory, where the ruling of the commission was affirmed. This decision was "indirectly affirmed" by this court on May 15, 1899, in the case of Stephens v. Cherokee Nation, 174 U. S. 445, 13 L. ed. 1041, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 722, where it was held that the legislation under which the judgment was rendered was constitutional, and that this court was without jurisdiction to | descendant, and has in good faith review decisions of the courts of Indian joined his brethren in the territory, with Territory in citizenship cases except up- the intent to become one of the citizens on the question of the constitutionality or validity of the legislation. On February 11, 1897, a resolution drawn up by Mr. Owen was passed by the Senate, directing the Secretary [383] of the Interior to transmit certain historical data and information respecting the rights of the 14th article claimants. This was referred by the Secretary to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs for reply, and his reply, containing material supporting the claims of the Mississippi Choctaws, was transmitted by the Secretary to the Senate, February 15, 1897 (Senate Doc. 129, 54th Cong., 2d Sess.). About the same time, Mr. Owen made an argument before the Committee on Indian Affairs of the House in support of House Bill No. 10,372, intended to permit the Mississippi Choctaws to continue to reside in that state and still claim the rights of Choctaw citizens. A favorable report was made by the committee, March 3, 1897 (House Report 3,080, 54th Cong., 2d Sess.), but the bill never passed either House. of the nation. Having done so, such person has a right to be enrolled as a Choctaw citizen, and to claim all the privileges of such a citizen, except to a share in the annuities. And that otherwise he cannot claim as a right the 'privilege of a Choctaw citizen.' The commission further said that, if they were correct in this, still any person presenting himself, claiming the right, must be required by some tribunal to prove the fact that he was a descendant of some one of those Indians who originally availed themselves of and conformed to the requirements of the 14th article of the Treaty of 1830. "The time for making application to this commission to be enrolled as a Choctaw citizen has expired. It would be necessary, therefore, to extend by law the time for persons claiming this right to make application and be heard by this commission, or to create a new tribunal for that purpose." On June 28, 1898, Congress passed an act, commonly known as the Curtis Act, which contained in § 21 provisions for the making of rolls of the Five Civilized Tribes by the Dawes Commission, and, among others, the following: "Said commission shall have author taw Indians claiming rights in the Choctaw lands under article fourteen of the treaty between the United States and the Choctaw Nation concluded September twenty-seventh, eighteen hundred and thirty [7 Stat. at L. 335], and to that end they may administer oaths, examine witnesses, and perform all other acts necessary thereto and make report to the Secretary of the Interior. In the Indian Appropriation Act of June 7, 1897, however, the following provision was contained: "That the commission appointed to negotiate with the Five Civilized Tribes in the Indian Ter-ity to determine the identity of Chocritory shall examine and report to Congress whether the Mississippi Choctaws, under their treaties, are not entitled to all the rights of Choctaw citizenship except an interest in the Choctaw annuities" (chap. 3, 30 Stat. at L. 62, 83). Following the passage of this act Mr. Owen appeared before the Dawes Commission in the interest of the Mississippi Choctaws with whom he had contracts. On January 28, 1898, the commission made a report to Congress, as required by the act last mentioned (House Doc. 274, 55th Cong., 2d Sess.), setting forth in brief the history of the Mississippi Choctaws and their then present condition; and submitting an elaborate argument in opposition to the contention that those Choctaws might continue their residence and political status in Mississippi as in the past, and still enjoy all the rights of Choctaw citizenship except to share in the Choctaw annuities; [384] declaring that, in order to avail himself of the privileges of a Choctaw citizen, any person claiming to be a descendant of those provided for in article 14 of the Treaty of 1830 "must first show the fact that he is such [385] "No person shall be enrolled. who has not heretofore removed to and in good faith settled in the nation in which he claims citizenship: Provided, however, That nothing contained in this act shall be so construed as to militate against any rights or privileges which the Mississippi Choctaws may have under the laws of or the treaties with the United States." Chap. 517, 30 Stat. at L. 495, 503. Public notice having been given in Mississippi as to the times and places at which the commission would hear applications for identification under the above provision, one of the commissioners, A. S. McKennon, proceeded to Mississippi in January, 1899, with a |