Case ID: us-ct-cl_39/html/0321-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Wright, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

WATSON STEWART v. THE UNITED STATES.
    [No. 23216.
    Decided March 21, 1904.]
    
      On the Proofs.
    
    Tlie Act 3cl March, 1908 (32 Stat. L., pt. 1, p. 1010), confers jurisdiction on tlie court of cases of registers and receivers in land offices wlio had the responsibility of the sales of the Osage lands under the treaty 29th September, 1805. It appears that the claimant was appointed register in May, 1809, after the Secretary of the Interior had established rules and regulations for the sale of the Osage lands and had limited the compensation to the existing maximum of $2,500 pdl. annum. I-Ie seeks to recover an unrestricted commission.
    I. The Treaty 29th September, 1865 (Indian Treaties, 585), be-tween the Osage Indians and the United States constitutes, an agreement whereby the United States were bound to so sell the lands of the Osages that they should produce for the beneficiaries as large a net sum as was practicable.
    II. The treaty required the lands to be sold under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior as public lands are sold under existing laws, and the Secretary liad authority to prescribe rules and regulations regulating sales and the compensation of officers assigned to the duty of making sales.
    III.A regulation authorizing the registers and receivers to charge a commission on these lands as on all others, hut limiting tlie compensation for all services to the legal maximum of $2,500 per annum, and charging the Indian fund with only so much of the commissions as would bring the compensation to tlie maximum, was authorized by law.
    IY. A register appointed subsequent to the rules and regulations and assigned to the duty of disposing of Indian and other lands was bound by the terms of.«the regulations, and can seek nothing beyond the prescribed legal maximum. The case distinguished from that of Brinitte (100 U. S., 688),
    
      The Reporters’ statement of the case:
    Tlie following are the facts of the case as found by the court:
    I. The claimant, Watson Stewart, was appointed and commissioned register of the United States land office at Humboldt, in the State of Kansas, entered upon duty May 12, 1869, and served continuously until November 20, 1871.
    
      II. On November 23 and December 19, 1867, the General Land Office, by authoritj^ of the Secretary of the Interior, issued instructions to the registers and receivers in the State of Kansas for the rendition of services in the sale of lands ceded to the United States by article 1 of the treaty between the United States and the Great and Little Osage Indians, concluded September 29, 1865, and of the lands agreed to be held in trust for said Osage Indians by article 2 of the said treaty, as follows:
    “ DEPARTMENT OE THE INTERIOR,
    “ General Land Oeeice,
    “ Washington, D. G., November %3,1867.
    
    “ Register and Receiver,
    
      “ Humboldt, Ilans.
    
    
      “ Gentlemen : By the 4th article of the Sage treaty, Sejjt. 29,1865, all loyal persons being heads of families and citizens of the United States or members of any tribe at peace with the United States and now residing on the lands provided by the 1st and 2d article of the treaty, to be sold by the- United States, shall have the privilege at any time within one year after the ratification of this treaty of buying a quarter section each, at one dollar and twenty-five cents per acre; such quarter section to be selected according to legal- subdivisions of surveys, and to include as far as practicable the improvements of the settler.
    “This treaty was ratified by President on 21st January, 1867, hence tlie above privilege will expire 21 Jany., 1868.
    “ The plats of survey haying been nearly all furnished you, I have to direct that you publish a notice for one week in a daily paper having the largest circulation in the neighborhood of said lands; that you will prepare, from and after a certain day to be designated by you and to be as early opened as possible, to hear and adjudicate the claims of settlers claiming the privilege of said 4th article.
    “ You will require the affidavit of the party as to loyalty and proof that they were residing on the lands before and at the date of the treaty September 29, 1865, and that have bona fide settlement and improvements on the tracts, the character and extent of the same to be fully shown and payments made with cash.
    “ In reporting the entries you will divide them into two classes — one comprising the entries under the 1st article, or the lands ceded and sold to the United States for $300,000, and the other enclosing the entries on lands under the 2d article of the treaty, being those held in trust for the Indians.
    
      “ You will issue a new series of certificates and receipt for each class, commencing in each Avith No. 1. The first class you designate as Osage lands and the other as Osage Indian trust lands, and I desire that particular care shall be taken in all cases to endorse clearly on each certificate and receipt, as also on your abstracts, the name of the class to which the paper belong.
    “ Special instructions with forms will be sent in a feAV days to the receiver in regard to the manner of rendering his accounts of these sales.
    “ Very respectfully, your obt. sert.,
    “ Jos. S. Wilson, Commissioner.”
    “ DEPARTMENT OP THE INTERIOR,
    “ General Land Opeice,
    “ Washington, D. C., December 19, 1867.
    
    “ Register and Receia-er,
    
      u Humboldt, Has.
    
    i: Gentlemen : Referring to my letter of the 23 ult. inclosing instructions respecting the manner of keeping the records, &c., pertaining to the sale of lands ceded under 1st and 2d article of the treaty of 29 September, 1865, with the Great and Little Osage Indians, I have now to state that the folloAving rules are to be observed by the receiver in keeping and rendering his accounts thereof, forms of which are liereAvith inclosed, viz:
    “ Special accounts are to be kept of the proceeds of sales of the lands disposed of under respective articles of the treaty transcript from which are to be rendered to this office at the termination of each month and quarter.
    “ The monthly account is to embrace to the credit of the United States the aggregate area of the land sold during the same, with the amount of postage money received therefor, and to the debit of the United States the amount of money paid into the Treasury on account thereof.
    “ The quarterly accounts are to embrace both the detailed and condensed forms, the first shoAving consecutively the several entries made during the quarter to the credit of the United States and to the debit of the same, the sums paid into the Treasury on account thereof; the condensed account the same items in aggregate. The receiver when making a deposit to state specifically the fund to which it is applicable, debiting the amount in like manner in his accounts thus:
    “ To the credit of the ‘ Civilization fund,’ under I Article, treaty 29 September, 1865.
    
      “ To tho credit of the ‘ Great and Little Osage Indians,’ under II Article, treaty 29 September, 18(55.
    “ The register and receiver will be allowed a commission of one per cent each on the proceeds of the sales of these lands, with limitation, as a mater of course, to the legal maximum of $2,500, inclusive of commissions and fees, &c., on the disposal of the public lands, the payment of which is to be made by the receiver in this capacity of disbursing agent and to be debited in a special account, together with such other expense incident to the sale of the lands alluded to as may be authorized by law and instructions.
    “ Please acknowledge the receipt of this.
    “ Very respectfully, your obt. sevt.,
    “ Jos. S. Wilson, Commissioner.'1'1
    
    March 28 and 31, 1871, instructions were issued to said registers and receivers to take charge of the sale of lands contained in the diminished reservation of said Osage Indians, referred to in article 16 of said treaty, which were authorized to be sold by section 12 of the act of July 15, 1870 (16 Stat. L., 362), as folknvs:
    “ DEPARTMENT OE THE INTERIOR,
    “ General Land Oejfice,
    “ Washington, D. C., March %8, 1871.
    
    
      “ Register and Receiver,
    
      u Augusta, Kansas.
    
    “ Referring to .our letter to you of the 16th inst., I have now to give you the following instructions relative to the disposal of the Osage trust and diminished reserve lands in your district under the 12th section, act of July 15, 1870.
    “ Under this act these lands, except the 16th and 36th sections, which were treated of in our letter to you of the 4th inst., under the decision of the Secretary dated 14-th uit., are opened to settlement after survey, and are required to ‘ be sold to actual settlers only, said settlers being heads of families, or over 21 years of age, in quantities not exceeding 160 acres in square form to each settler, at the price of $1.25 per acre, payment to be made in cash within one year from date of settlement or the passage of this act.’
    “ The officers will be allowed the same fee for filing as is allowed under the preemption laws, viz, $1 to each officer; this fee the receiver will account for in his receiver’s account of public lands, stating the item as ‘ fees ’ for (number) declaratory statements filed on Osage Indian trust and dimin-isliecl reserve lands. They will also be allowed- a-commission of one per cent on the cash value of the lands sold.
    The receiver will render his account of these Indian lands in the following manner, to wit:
    ‘£ ‘ He will in his receiver’s account credit the United States with all moneys received during the quarter from the sale of the lands and charge the U. S. with amount deposited and the amount of authorized disbursements for the quarter.
    “ ‘ In his disbursing account he will charge the United States with the authorized disbursements and credit the U. S. the said amount as carried to the receiver’s account and therein charged. Voucher for payment must accompany the disbursement account; otherwise they will be disalloivecl.
    l£ ‘ Nothing, liovTever, shall be herein construed as authorizing the register and receiver to receive more than the maximum fees and commissions of $2,500 jper annum now allowed by laAv, and the receiver in adjusting his accounts will take care to first ascertain how much short of the maximum the receipt from public lands, including the fees received from declaratory statements on the Osage lands, will bring their fees and commissions, and -will then charge to the Indian fund only so much commissions as will bring their compensation to the maximum.’
    ‘£ You will observe that these claims only refer to the diminished reserve, therefore none of the Osage trust lands are embraced in its provisions.
    “ Be pleased to acknowledge the receipt of this.
    “ Very respectfully,
    (Signed) “ Willis Drummond,
    “ Commissioner.
    
    “ Approved:
    (Signed) “ C. Delano,
    
      ££Secretary of the Interior.’’’’
    
    III. In accordance wdth the instructions set forth in the last preceding finding, the claimant, while register of the land office at Humboldt, Kans., performed services in the sale of lands ceded by said Osage Indians by section 1 of said treaty; of lands held in trust by the United States under section 2 of said treaty, and of lands included within the diminished reservation of said Indians under section 16 o.f said treaty.
    The maximum compensation of $3,000 per annum, in accordance with the instructions from the General Land Office, set forth in finding n, for each year, was duly paid, by the United States to the claimant.
    IV. The following tabulated statements show the total receipts from sales and for filing fees collected for the register during the term of service of Register Stewart from May 12, 1869, to November 20,1871, inclusive; also the total fees and commissions earned by and paid to him each year on each class of lands, and the 'maximum compensation alloAved by law for each year, or part of year, of his term of office:
    
      Receipts from sales of Osage ceded lands, article 1 of treaty.
    
    
      
    
    
      Receipts from sales of Osage trust and Osage diminished reserve lands, ■ articles 2 and 16.
    
    
      
    
    
      Total salary, fees, and commissions earned by Register Stewart from all sources during each year of service.
    
    
      
    
    
      
      Salary, fees, and commissions paid Register Stewart on each class of lands during each year of service.
    
    
      
    
    
      Maximum compensation allowed by law and amount paid Register Stewart.
    
    
      
    
    
      Total fees and commissions earned, paid and unpaid, on Osage trust and diminished reserve Indian lands.
    
    
      
    
    V. The total amount received on sales of Osage ceded lands was $1,055,162.01. The total amount received as filing fees of $2 for each declaratory statement on Osage ceded lands was $8,570.
    The total amount received on sales of Osage trust and diminished reserve lands was $9,608,156.27. The total amount received as filing fees of $2 for each declaratory statement on Osage trust and diminished reserve lands was $130,596.
    The filing fees on both the ceded and the trust and diminished reserve lands were covered into the Treasury of the United States.
    The total amount of money held in trust by the Government for said Osage Indians arising out of the sale of their lands under said treaty of September 29, 1865, is $8,327,-439.07, on which interest at 5 per cent is paid by the United States, amounting annually to $416,371.95.
    
      Mr. George A. King for the claimant. Messrs. George A. and Wülian B. King, Mr. R. V. Belt, and Mr. E. J. Turner were on the brief.
    .Congress in enacting the thirteenth section of the Indian appropriation act of 1903 had full knowledge that this claimant and other land officers in Kansas had received some part of the commissions and fees which they claimed to be the reasonable and lawful value of their services in the disposal of these Osage lands, but that they claimed that the payment was inadequate and less than the reasonable or lawful value of their services. Congress regarding the courts better fitted than itself to decide whether these services were covered by their regular compensation for the sale of public lands, and if not, what was the reasonable value of such services, referred those questions to this court for adjudication. Surely it was not contemplated by Congress in the enactment of this statute that this court would find itself unable to settle these questions, and would dismiss them without examination simply on the ground that the Department had ruled either before or after the rendition of the services that these were public lands, on which only the regular compensation was to be computed up to the maximum. The review of that ruling on its merits was the very end sought to be attained by the statute — an end which would be defeated if the ruling were now held conclusive under the name of a contract.
    Here, as upon other branches of the case, the decision of the Supreme Court in United States v. Brindle (110 U. S., 688) constitutes a guiding authority. That casé, like this, comes before the courts under a special act of reference.That act, 1878, June 10, chapter-179 (20 Stat. L., 541), provided that the court in which the suit was pending “ shall hear and determine all disputes and differences between the United States and the said William Brindle in reference to his various accounts,” etc.
    The findings in that case, as quoted in our former brief, show that Brindle had already received commissions amounting to $2,500, constituting bis legal maximum for sales of public lands; all of the maximum in that case having apparently been paid out of the sales of Indian lands instead of only a small part, as in this case. The Supreme Court did not hold itself precluded by the payment of this $2,500 to Brindle from adjudicating upon the value of-his services in the disposal of lands not covered bj)- his regular duties, but gave judgment in his favor for the amount which they found to be the reasonable value of those services, merely giving credit thereon for the amount which he had already received.
    Counsel for the United States in one part of his. brief treats the action of the Secretary of the Interior in fixing this compensation as a part of the “ rules and regulations ” authorized by the second article of the treaty in relation to the trust lands. These words refer to regulations concerning the sale of the lands and have nothing to do with the question of compensation.
    As is well remarked by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs in commenting on these claims, as quoted in the committee report on one of them, “ The authority for compensating these agents was found in the treaties, and 'not elsewhere.”
    This court and the Supreme Court have had occasion in numerous cases to place a construction upon special acts referring cases to this court for adjudication, and have invariably held that their effect is to waive all technical defenses, and especially that of estoppel arising out of the receipt of a smaller amount than that claimed.
    In the celebrated case of Marshall O. Roberts it was insisted on behalf of the United States, and decided by this court, that when Congress referred the claim to this court as a claim “ for compensation for services in carrying the United,States mails,” etc., and directed this court “ to examine the same, and determine and adjudge whether any, and if any, what amount was due said trustees for said extra service,” it did not intend thereby to ratify such extra service, but submitted to the court, every question that might originally arise in the case, including the validity of the service as originally performed. (Roberts v. United States, 6 C. Cls. R., 84.)
    From that judgment the present Chief Justice of this court dissented.
    On appeal the judgment of this court was reversed and the view taken in the dissenting opinion approved.
    Again, in the case of Hubbell v. United States (15 C. Cls. R., 546),where Congress, by a special act, authorized this court to reexamine certain international claims, with a full knowledge upon the part of Congress of every fact which ever occurred in regard to them, it was held that Congress must have regarded them as valid claims according to the principles of international law, and to have referred them to this court solely for an ascer'taimhent of the amount.
    Again, in the case of Swan v. United States (19 C. Cls. R., 51), being the claims arising on account of the capture of the ram Albemarle, it ivas claimed on behalf of the Government that the claimants were estopped by certain proceedings from claiming their share of the prize money demanded. With much plausibility it ivas urged in support of this opinion that the act referring the claims to this court expressly admitted “ all defenses thereto ivhich are or may be open to the United States,” but the court did not take this view.
    This case went on appeal to the Supreme Court, and was affirmed. (United States v. Steever, 113 U. S., 747.)
    In Gray v. District of Columbia (24 C. Cls. R., 426) it was held (syllabus, par. 4, p. 427) :
    “ The only issue to be determined by the court under the act referring the claim of Bowen for ‘ decision and adjudication upon the merits,’ is the reasonable value of the work done.”
    In Gross v. United States (8 C. Cls. R., 1) the Supreme Court held that a special act referring the claim of an as-signee of a lease to this court had the effect of removing the objection to the claim arising out of the statute prohibiting the assignment of contracts.
    So again, in Briggs v. United States (143 U. S., 346), a cotton claim referred to this court by special act, the court said (p. 358) :
    
      “ His loyalty was found by the court, and also the bona 
      
      ■fieles of the sale of the property. After these facts had been established the only question that could have been properly considered was the amount of the proceeds which the petitioner should receive.”
    In view of the form of the act and the decision first- rendered by this court under it (25 C. Cls. B., 126) this construction is important.
    So again, in Murphy v. United States (35 C. Cls. B., 494) the claimant had brought a former action on a contract which had been adversely decided on the ground of acceptance as a final settlement and compromise. (14 C. Cls. B., 508; 15 C. Cls. B., 217; 104 U. S., 464.) Afterwards Congress passed a special act of reference. This was construed by this court as removing the bar arising from the acceptance in full. (See also Grant v. United States, 18 C. Cls. B., 732.)
    These decisions under special acts of reference show that such acts have been uniformly construed as removing all technical objections to the maintenance of a suit in this court arising out of a supposed estoppel caused by an acceptance as in full and as opening up the way to an adjudication of questions of amount and value.
    The theory of an agreement and Settlement can only be sustained by attributing to the acts of the parties a meaning entirely at variance with what was understood by themselves at the time to be their meaning. No one can read the instructions of the Interior Department without being convinced that the action there taken by the Department was intended as a ruling as to the compensation of the officers under existing laws, not as a proposal to them to undertake the service on the basis of an agreement. The ruling has, therefore, precisely the same force as is attributed by law to every other ruling of the Department on the liability of the Government. It is binding and conclusive until set aside by the judiciary, but has no binding force upon the judiciary when the matter becomes a question before the courts. It is then free for examination upon its merits. (United States v. Bank of the Metropolis, 15 Pet., 377.)
    In the present case, while it is true a small allowance has been made for the sale of these lands, it was based upon a wholly erroneous theory of the law; and the courts being-resorted to to settle the rights between the United States and the party, he may allege it to be an insufficient allowance, and if he can show that it is so may recover the balance.
    The instructions of the Secretary of the Interior so far as they related to the question of compensation contained not a proposal to the claimant to enter into a contract, but an official ruling, and an erroneous one at that. Where officers of the Government in good faith comply with such rulings of their superior officers, they lose no rights by so doing. They are not bound to put themselves in the position of contentious and disobedient officers. Their compliance with their instructions, so far from constituting an. agreement to a contract, express or implied, puts them in a position peculiarly favorable for the assertion of their rights in the courts in opposition to such rulings where the rulings are found to be erroneous. This was decided by this court in Lawson v. United States (14 C. Cls. E., 332; affirmed 101 U. S. 169) and Ellsworth v. United States (14 C. Cls. E., 382; affirmed 101 U. S., 170).
    The same principlehas been many times followed. (Swift Go., v. United States, 111 U. S., 22, 29; Robertson v. Frank Brothers Go., 132 U. S., 17, 23; Mosby v. United States, 24 C. Cls. E., 1, 8; 133 U. S., 273, 279; United States v. Post, 148 U. S., 124, 133, affirming 27 C. Cls. E., 244; San Francisco Letter Carriers, 35 C. Cls. E., 223.)
    The official ruling of the Department of the Interior, therefore, made before the time of these sales was no more conclusive against the right of the claimant to recover in this suit than are the rulings made by the Interior and Treasury Departments since. They are simply departmental decisions binding neither party when the matter comes to be •litigated in the courts of law. . .
    These departmental rulings are plainly within the reviewing power of this court under its general jurisdiction, as shown in Meclbury v. United States (173 U. S., 492), and much more so under the terms of the jurisdictional statute under which the case comes here.
    It is unnecesary to review the numerous acts of Congress referred to in Section IV, pages 128-131 of the brief of counsel for the Osage Nation. All of them having the slightest bearing upon this question were in force during the time covered by the decision of tlie Supreme Court in the Brindle case and were held not inconsistent with a claim for the recovery of special compensation for the special service rendered in the sale of Indian lands.
    We need also not review at length the decision of the Supreme Court in Martin- v. United, States (12 C. Cls. R., 87), of this court in Gordon v. United States (31 C. Cls. R., 251), or of the United States District Court for the District of Kentucky in Coleman v. United States (81 Fed. Rep., 824).
    All these cases arose under the eight-hour law constituting section 3738 of the Revised Statutes. The latest of these cases, that of Coleman, summarizes the previous decisions by saying that the act of 1868, now constituting section 3738 of the Revised Statutes, “ was never intended to give the laborer or -workman or mechanic a right of action, or to raise an implied contract, if they should work more than the time.” (81 Fed. Rep., 825.)
    Under the later eight-hour act of 1892, August 1, chapter 352 (2 Supp. R. S., 62), it has been decided that there is a right of action. {Moses v. United States, 116 Fed. Rep., 527.)
    So, too, under the eight-hour law for letter carriers, there have been repeated decisions of the Supreme Court and this court in favor of a recovery. {The Letter Carrier eases, 27 C. Cls. R., 214, affirmed 118 U. S., 121,131; Charleston Letter Carriers v. United States, 32 C. Cls. R., 259; Chicago Letter Carriers v. United States, 31 C. Cls. R., 531; San Francisco Letter Curriers, 35 C. Cls. R., 223.)
    In many other cases it has been held that the rendition of extra services outside of the scope of official duty gives rise to a claim for additional compensation whether the rulings of the Department as made at the time be favorable or adverse. Especially is this so where there is a fund at the disposal of the Department out of which such payments may be made. {Converse y. United States, 21 How., 163; Collier 
      
      y. United States, 22 C. Cls. R., 125; Matthews v. United States, 32 C. Cls. R., 123, affirmed 173 U. S., 381; Hayden v. United States, 38 C. Cls. R., 39.)
    
      Mr. George H. Gorman (with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Pradi) for the United States. Mr. Lorenzo A. Bailey for the Osage Nation.
   Wright, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

Claimant brings this suit as one of the registers under the authority of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1903 (32. Stat. L., pt. 1, p. 1010), which provides, in effect, that any one or more of the registers and receivers of the United States land office in the State of Kansas who had the responsibility of the sales of Osage ceded, trust, and diminished reserve land, under the treaty of September 29, 1865, with the Osage Indians, and the acts of Congress for carrying the treaty into effect, may bring suit in this court against the Osage Nation and the United States to determine the claim of the jffaintiff or jffaintiffs for commissions or compensation for the sale of said lands or any service or duty connected therewith, and by that act this court is given jurisdiction to hear and determine the cause, and to render judgment therein on the merits.

The above-mentioned treaty (Ind. Treaties, 1873, 585), as far as it is material to this decision to state, in effect required the ceded lands to be surveyed and sold, under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior, on the most advantageous terms for each (the United States and the Indians), as public lands are surveyed and sold under existing laws, withholding, however, preemption claims and homestead settlements, the net proceeds of such sales remaining after cost of survey and sale had been paid, and the sum of $300,000 placed to the credit of the Osage Indians, to be placed to the credit of the “ Civilization fund,” for the education and civilization of Indian tribes in the United States. The trust lands were required to be surveyed and sold for the benefit of the Osage Indians at a price not less than $1.25 per acre, as other lands are surveyed and sold, under such rules and regulations as the Secretary of the Interior shall from time to time prescribe, and the proceeds of such sales, after deducting all expenses incident to the proper execution of the trust, to be placed in the Treasury of the United States to the credit of the Osage Indians. And it was agreed that if the Indians should remove from the State of Kansas (which they did) the diminished reserve lands should be disposed of in the same manner and for the same purposes .provided in relation to the trust lands, except that 50 per cent of the proceeds thereof might be used in the purchase of lands for a suitable home for the Osage Indians in the Indian Territory.

Appropriate legislation was passed by Congress to carry into effect the treaty and to sell the lands mentioned therein in accordance with its terms. The Secretary of the Interior, November 23 and December 19, 1867, issued to the registers and receivers at Humboldt, Kans., his instructions containing rules and regulations relative to the sale of the ceded and trust lands, and also March 28, 1871, relative to the diminished reserve lands, like instructions, in all of which it was explicitly stated, in effect, that the registers and receivers would each be allowed a commission for the sale of the lands of all classes — ceded, trust, and diminished reserve — of 1 per cent each on the proceeds of the sales, with limitation to the legal maximum compensation provided by law, inclusive of commissions and fees on the disposal of public lands; and in the instructions of March 28, 1871, the former instructions relative to compensation were restated and epitomized in the following language:

“ Nothing, however, shall be herein construed as authorizing the register and receiver to receive more than the maximum fees and commissions of $2,500 per annum now allowed by law, and the receiver in adjusting his accounts will take care to first ascertain how much short of the maximum the receipt from public lands, including the fees received from declaratory statements on the Osage lands, will bring their fees and commissions, and will then charge to the Indian fund only so much commissions as will bring their compensation to the maximum.”

The treaty in question constituted the contract between the United States and the Osage Indians by which the latter ceded and surrendered all their rights and interests in the lands embraced in the Kansas Reservation, and is to be construed like other contracts. Every provision and stipulation in the contract should be given the force and effect intended by the parties thereto at the time it -was entered into. It will not be disputed that it was the intention of the parties that the sale of the lands should produce to the beneficiaries, the Indians, as large a net sum as was reasonably practicable. It. was stipulated in the contract that the lands should be surveyed and sold, under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior, on the most advantageous terms, as public lands are surveyed and sold, and under such rules and regulations as that officer might from time to time prescribe. By the terms of the contract the Indians were entitled to the judgment and discretion of the Secretary of the Interior, and to have that officer use his valuable services in the direction of the sales of their lands. This they might well have regarded as a strong-protection to their rights and interests, and was no doubt a considerable inducement for them to enter into the contract as they did. In accordance with this contract as regards the Indians, and otherwise in obedience to law, the Secretary of the Interior did exercise his judgment and discretion in the sale of the lands, and among other things added to the duties of the register and receiver the sales of the same, fixing the compensation for such services, in effect, at the difference between the commissions and fees on disposal of public lands and the maximum compensation allowed by law, and in no event should such compensation exceed the legal maximum.

While the rules and regulations so prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior were in force the claimant accepted the appointment and qualified as register. He performed the services, so required of him, and received the maximum compensation provided therefor by law and the regulations of the Secretary of the Interior, without objection or protest, or claim for more compensation, so far as we discover in the record, until in February, 1902, thirty years after the last service was performed, when he initiated this claim in Congress, and by them it has been sent to this court for our determination. We are of the opinion that claimant voluntarily undertook to do, and did perform, the services described in his petition for the compensation he has already received, and that neither the United States nor the Osage Nation is liable to him for further compensation, nor did such liability exist at any time.

The case of Brindle (110 U. S., 688), upon which much reliance is placed by counsel for claimant, is easily distinguished from the case presented here. In that case it was said that so far as anything appeared in the record then before the court, the appointment of Brindle was not made because he was receiver of the land office. In the present case no specific personal appointments were made, but the registers.and receivers generally were designated to perform the service, and the duties were assigned to their respective offices without regard to the personal incumbents then existing. Claimant was not at the time of such designation and assignment of duties a register, but was appointed, and accepted such appointment, after the disposal of the ceded and trust lands had been attached to the office in which he qualified, and thereby obligated himself to perform all such duties as appertained thereto. The disposal of the diminished reserve lands was later included, but by continuing in the service claimant must be considered as having acquiesced in that action. Having volunarily assumed to discharge all the duties of the office, he must be presumed to have known what the .duties were, and that the services for which he now seeks further compensation were engagements included in his acceptance of the office at the time he entered upon the performance of its duties, which is further evidenced by his continued service without objection, and for the designated compensation. In the present case the appointment of claimant to the office of register included the appointment to do the business appertaining to the sale of the identical lands in question, without special mention.

. In conformity to the views herein expressed, the petition of the claimant will be dismissed.