opinion: CONFEDERATED BANDS OF UTE INDIANS v. UNITED STATES.
  No. 141.
  Argued January 14, 15, 1947.
  Decided February 17, 1947.
  Ernest L. Wilkinson argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the brief were John W. Cragun, Francis M. Goodwin and Glen A. Wilkinson.
  Marvin J. Sonosky argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Acting Solicitor General Washington, Assistant Attorney General Bazelon, Roger P. Marquis and Fred W. Smith.
  Mr. Justice Black
  delivered the opinion of the Court.
  Petitioners brought this action in the Court of Claims under the Act of June 28, 1938, 52 Stat. 1209, as amended, 55 Stat. 593, to recover compensation for lands made available to them by an 1875 Executive Order of the President and subsequently taken from them by the United States. Their claim was that by an Act of 1880, Congress had undertaken to sell these lands for the benefit of the petitioners, but that they had never been compensated for them. The Court of Claims, one judge concurring specially, made findings of fact and concluded as a matter of law that petitioners had no compensable interest in the lands because they “never did acquire title to these . . . lands and . . . the Congress never did agree to sell them for the account of” petitioners. 106 Ct. Cl. 33, 51, 64 F. Supp. 569, 571. We granted certiorari, 329 U. S. 694.
  The findings of the Court of Claims from official letters, Executive Orders and statutes incorporated in these findings were as follows:
  A treaty of 1868, 15 Stat. 619, between the United States and petitioners’ ancestors, the Ute Indian tribes, established a reservation for them in Colorado. The northern boundary of the 15 million acres there ceded was described in the treaty as a line fifteen miles north of, and parallel to, the 40th parallel of north latitude. In the 15-mile wide strip north of the 40th parallel lay the White River Valley which had been settled by the Utes as a most suitable place for grazing and cultivation. One of the two Government Indian agencies provided for the reservation by the treaty was established in that strip.
  As a result of misunderstandings in 1869 and 1874 between the Utes and white settlers to the north as to the true location of the northern treaty boundary, a survey was made in 1875 by one Miller. Miller’s instructions, however, required him to stake out a line which he admitted to the local Indian agent and to the Utes themselves to be fifteen to eighteen miles south of the true boundary described in the treaty. If Miller’s line had been correct, it would have excluded from the 1868 reservation the fertile White River Valley, and would have also excluded the agency buildings which had been erected there.
  The marking out of the erroneous Miller line greatly upset the Indians because they feared they would be driven from the White River Valley. This embarrassed the local Indian agent who had previously assured the Indians that the White River Valley lay within their reservation. He promptly reported the results of the survey and the reaction of the Indians to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs in Washington, and urged the necessity of a new survey at the earliest practicable date. He stated that if the Miller survey were correct, however, the Indians would be driven from the White River Valley—“the only farming land and . . . stock range ... in this portion of the Reservation”—and forced to settle on a river forty miles to the south. The Commissioner, acting on this report and a statement by Miller’s attorney that Miller’s line was correct, wrote to the Secretary of the Interior that the Miller survey “develops the fact that the White River and surrounding valleys as well as the Agency buildings and improvements at the White River Agency lie north of the . . . boundary and consequently are not within the limits of the . . . Ute Reservation.” He therefore recommended to the Secretary that the President be requested to issue an Executive Order to make available to the Utes additional territory north of the 1868 treaty boundary. The President, on the recommendation of the Secretary of the Interior, issued the order. And thereafter the Commissioner wrote the local agent that the order included “all that tract of country lying between the north boundary of the Ute reservation as defined in treaty of March 2, 1868 . . . which was the boundary surveyed by Mr. Miller . . . This action fully protects your Indians in the peaceable possession of their improvements in the White River valley and the Agency buildings, and will enable you to assure the Indians of the exact location of the limits of their reservation as enlarged.”
  In 1879, several years after the Executive Order was issued, hostilities broke out between some of the Utes and Government representatives in which the Indian agent at White River, all the agency’s male employees, and a U. S. military detachment were killed in the so-called “Meeker massacre.” H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 1, pt. 5, 46th Cong., 2d Sess. (1879) 16-19, 82-97. There have been charges and countercharges as to who was responsible for inciting these hostilities. Whoever was responsible, it is clear that Congress, aroused by the massacre, took steps to punish the Indians who participated in it, to dispossess the Utes of their reservation, and to remove them from Colorado. Congressional action to accomplish this was provided by the Act of June 15, 1880, 21 Stat. 199, which ratified and embodied an agreement reached earlier that year between the Government and the leaders of the Utes who had promised “to use their best endeavors with their people to procure their consent to cede to the United States all the territory of the present Ute Reservation . . . .” This Act authorized specific allotments to individual Indians from the lands so ceded. But § 3 provided that “all the lands not . . . allotted, the title to which is, by the said agreement of . . . the Ute Indians, and this acceptance by the United States, released and conveyed to the United States . . .” would be restored to the public domain for sale as public lands. The proceeds of the sale of the land so conveyed by the Utes to the United States were, upon satisfaction of indemnity conditions imposed because of the massacre, to be distributed to the Indians. Thereafter, in 1882, an Executive Order declared that the lands withdrawn from the public domain by the Executive Order of 1875 and “set apart for the use of the . . . Ute Indians . . . hereby is, restored to the public domain.” 1 Kappler, supra, 834-835.
  Pursuant to an Act of 1909, 35 Stat. 781, petitioners recovered a judgment for the proceeds of certain lands sold by the Government, as well as the value of certain lands appropriated by the Government to its own use, all of which were part of the 1868 treaty lands. Ute Indians v. United States, 45 Ct. Cl. 440, 46 Ct. Cl. 225. Thus, except for certain treaty lands not at issue here, litigation concerning which is now pending in the Court of Claims, the only lands in Colorado for which the Indians have not been paid are those to the north of and outside the 1868 treaty reservation which were made available to them by the Executive Order of 1875. In pursuit of compensation for these Executive Order lands, petitioners have brought this action pursuant to the Act of June 28, 1938, supra. That Act confers jurisdiction on the Court of Claims to hear, determine, and render final judgment on all legal and equitable claims of the Utes and to award judgment for the Indians where it is found “that any lands formerly belonging” to them “have been taken by the United States without compensation . . . .”
  Petitioners contend here that their predecessors understood that they not only owned the White River Valley lands, but that they also owned the Executive Order lands when, in 1880, they agreed to cede their reservation; and that Congress, by incorporating the agreement in the 1880 Act, thereby ratified it along with the Indians’ understanding of it. Petitioners further contend that whether or not Congress intended to obligate the Government to account for the Executive Order lands, they knew of the Indians’ understanding so that “the understanding of the Indians having been established,” their understanding entitles them to recover. Finally they argue that the Executive Order, unlike the one in issue in Sioux Tribe of Indians v. United States, 316 U. S. 317, conveyed a compensable interest to these Indians. The Government counters that the President had no power to give a compensable interest to the Indians to lands lying outside the true 1868 treaty boundaries; that if the President intended to make available lands outside the true boundary it was only to give a transitory, possessory, and not a compensable, interest; that his intent was, in fact, only to secure the Indians in their possession of the White River Valley, but no more, on the mistaken assumption that the White River Valley had been cut off from the reservation by the Miller survey; that the 1880 Act, neither by its terms, its legislative history, nor its administrative interpretation, suggests that Congress intended to ratify or expand the Executive Order or to compensate the Indians for the Executive Order lands; that the Indians did not have a contrary understanding; that in the face of such clear legislative language and intent, a contrary understanding of the Indians, even if established, could not justify a holding that the Indians obtained a compensable interest.
  It is conceded that the petitioners have either been, or are currently pressing litigation in the Court of Claims by which they seek to be, compensated for the White River Valley lands, and, in fact, for all of the land which was contained in the true boundaries of the 1868 reservation. The additional claim, insofar as it rests on the Executive Order of 1875, cannot be sustained. For the President had no authority to convey to the petitioners a compensable interest in the lands described in the order lying north of the true 1868 boundary. Sioux Tribe of Indians v. United States, supra. Nor is there any indication in the.findings that the President intended to convey more than a transitory, possessory interest by the 1875 Order. That order made the Indians no more than tenants at the will of the Government on that part of the land outside the true treaty reservation. Id. at 331. Moreover, the Court of Claims’ findings of fact, as emphasized by the special concurring opinion, indicate that the Executive Order was promulgated under the mistaken belief that its issuance was necessary in order to give the Indians the use of the White River Valley lands intended to be granted to them by the 1868 treaty and from which they might otherwise have been excluded by the Miller survey. These findings do not indicate that the Commissioner, the Secretary, or the President intended the order to make available the lands it in fact described lying north of the true treaty boundary. The order was designed only to resolve the misunderstanding created by Miller about the White River Valley lands. The fullest possible purpose of the Executive Order has actually been carried out. For the Indians’ enjoyment of the White River lands was protected during their stay on the reservation, and the lands have either already been paid for, or are the subject of pending litigation in the Court of Claims whereby the Indians seek payment for them. It is with these things in mind that we must consider petitioners’ contention that they have a right to recover compensation because of the 1880 Act.
  There is not one word in that Act showing a congressional purpose to convey the Executive Order lands, or any other lands, to the Indians. On the contrary, the Act embodied a transaction whereby the Indians were the transferors and conveyed lands to the Government. For the value of lands so conveyed, and for no other, the Government was to make an account to the Indians after certain deductions had been made.
  Nor is it possible to deduce from the 1880 Act a congressional purpose to transform the Executive Order into a conveyance of something more than a mere temporary and cancellable possessory right to the Indians. Neither the language of the 1880 Act, its legislative history, nor the circumstances which brought it about, justify the claim that Congress intended to expand the Executive Order into a transfer of a compensable interest in lands not included in the original treaty reservation. The Act was an aftermath of the “Meeker massacre.” With the massacre in mind, Congress decided to remove the Indians from the Colorado reservation as part of the punishment meted out for this tragedy. The very first section of the 1880 Act prohibited any payments at all to the Indians until the Indians involved had surrendered, been apprehended, or until the President had proof that they were dead or outside the United States. Compensation for the families of the massacre victims was to be deducted from the land sale proceeds payable to the Indians. We cannot find from this background a congressional purpose to make a gift to the Indians of the Executive Order lands for which compensation is here sought. The only lands for which Congress agreed in 1880 to compensate the Indians were those “the title to which” the Indians then “released and conveyed to the United States.” They could only release and convey the lands that belonged to them, and only the lands given to them by the original 1868 treaty belonged to them. It was for compensation for such lands only that Congress, in 1938, authorized this action to be maintained. Under all these circumstances, the fact that the 1880 Act required the chiefs and headmen to procure the consent of their people to the cession of “the present Ute Reservation” is not sufficient to attribute to Congress a purpose to treat as a part of that reservation lands which had never been legally conveyed to the Indians and which had only been made available to them by the Executive Order for the sole purpose of making them secure in their possession of the White River Valley.
  It is said, however, that the Indians understood in 1880 that they owned the Executive Order lands which lay north of the White River Valley; that they understood their “present Ute Reservation” to include them; that they understood that Congress undertook by the 1880 Act to sell the lands for their benefit; and that Congress was aware of this understanding. The majority opinion of the Court of Claims stated that “in all probability” this was true. The writer of the concurring opinion thought differently. But even if the Indians had believed that they had a compensable interest in the Executive Order lands, this fact would not necessarily have given it to them. Certainly the absence of presidential authority to give them a compensable title could not be supplied by the Indians’ understanding that the President had such authority. The Sioux Indians may also have thought the President had authority to convey title to them; but the reasons on which our decision in the Sioux case, supra, rested do not indicate that our holding depended in any way upon the understanding of the Indians. Nor can this alleged understanding be imputed to Congress in the face of plain language and a rather full legislative history indicating that the 1880 Act neither conveyed nor ratified conveyance of these lands. While it has long been the rule that a treaty with Indians is to be construed so as to carry out the Government’s obligations in accordance with the fair understanding of the Indians, we cannot, under the guise of interpretation, create presidential authority where there was none, nor rewrite congressional acts so as to make them mean something they obviously were not intended to mean. Choctaw Nation v. United States, 318 U. S. 423, 431-432. We cannot, under any acceptable rule of interpretation, hold that the Indians owned the lands merely because they thought so. Solicitous as the Government is to carry out its promises to the Indians in good faith, we are satisfied from this record that the Government has performed all that it promised.
  As we have pointed out, it seems obvious to us from the findings of the Court of Claims that the Executive Order was only intended to secure for these Indians’ ancestors possession of the White River Valley lands conveyed to them by the original 1868 treaty, and which was jeopardized by the Miller survey. In fact, the President had no authority to convey a compensable interest in these or other lands to the Utes. Fairly to carry out the 1868 treaty was the order’s aim. The 1880 Act, we believe, did not enlarge upon the limited purpose of the Executive Order. To compensate these Indians for lands not intended to be conveyed by the 1868 treaty, the Executive Order, nor the 1880 Act, would be to pay them for lands which neither they nor their ancestors ever owned and to which they had no claim in equity or justice, so far as the transactions here at issue are concerned. No rule of construction justifies such a result.
  Affirmed.
  The Executive Order of November 22, 1875, 1 Kappler, Indian Affairs, Laws and Treaties, 834 (1904) is as follows:
  “It is hereby ordered that the tract of country in the Territory of Colorado lying within the following-described boundaries, viz: Commencing at the northeast corner of the present Ute Indian Reservation, as defined in the treaty of March 2, 1868 (Stats, at Large, vol. 15, p. 619); thence running north on the 107th degree of longitude to the first standard parallel north; thence west on said first standard parallel to the boundary line between Colorado and Utah; thence south with said boundary to the northwest corner of the Ute Indian Reservation; thence east with the north boundary of the said reservation to the place of beginning, be, and the same hereby is, withdrawn from sale and set apart for the use of the several tribes of Ute Indians, as an addition to the present reservation in said Territory.”
  Cf. Executive Order of August 17, 1876, which interpreted a treaty so as to “set apart [certain land] as a part of the Ute Indian Reservation, in accordance with the first article of an agreement made with said Indians and ratified by Congress . . . .” 1 Kappler, supra, 834.
  The Court of Claims did not find this as an ultimate fact. But the correspondence which plainly shows it was incorporated in the findings. This Court has said with reference to findings of the Court of Claims that the “absence of the finding of an ultimate fact does not require a reversal of the judgment if the circumstantial facts as found are such that the ultimate fact follows from them as a necessary inference.” United States v. Wells, 283 U. S. 102, 120.
  See S. 772 and S. Res. 51, 10 Cong. Rec. pt. 1 (1879) 30, 77; H. R. 142, 10 Cong. Rec. 44-; H. R. 2420, 10 Cong. Rec. 17; H. R. 154, 10 Cong. Rec. 113; H. R. 5092, 10 Cong. Rec. pt. 2 (1880) 1538.
  See p. 177, supra.
choices: U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals U.S. Court of International Trade U.S. Court of Claims, Court of Federal Claims U.S. Court of Military Appeals, renamed as Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces U.S. Court of Military Review U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals U.S. Customs Court U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit U.S. Tax Court Temporary Emergency U.S. Court of Appeals U.S. Court for China U.S. Consular Courts U.S. Commerce Court Territorial Supreme Court Territorial Appellate Court Territorial Trial Court Emergency Court of Appeals Supreme Court of the District of Columbia Bankruptcy Court U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit (includes the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia but not the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, which has local jurisdiction) Alabama Middle U.S. District Court Alabama Northern U.S. District Court Alabama Southern U.S. District Court Alaska U.S. District Court Arizona U.S. District Court Arkansas Eastern U.S. District Court Arkansas Western U.S. District Court California Central U.S. District Court California Eastern U.S. District Court California Northern U.S. District Court California Southern U.S. District Court Colorado U.S. District Court Connecticut U.S. District Court Delaware U.S. District Court District Of Columbia U.S. District Court Florida Middle U.S. District Court Florida Northern U.S. District Court Florida Southern U.S. District Court Georgia Middle U.S. District Court Georgia Northern U.S. District Court Georgia Southern U.S. District Court Guam U.S. District Court Hawaii U.S. District Court Idaho U.S. District Court Illinois Central U.S. District Court Illinois Northern U.S. District Court Illinois Southern U.S. District Court Indiana Northern U.S. District Court Indiana Southern U.S. District Court Iowa Northern U.S. District Court Iowa Southern U.S. District Court Kansas U.S. District Court Kentucky Eastern U.S. District Court Kentucky Western U.S. District Court Louisiana Eastern U.S. District Court Louisiana Middle U.S. District Court Louisiana Western U.S. District Court Maine U.S. District Court Maryland U.S. District Court Massachusetts U.S. District Court Michigan Eastern U.S. District Court Michigan Western U.S. District Court Minnesota U.S. District Court Mississippi Northern U.S. District Court Mississippi Southern U.S. District Court Missouri Eastern U.S. District Court Missouri Western U.S. District Court Montana U.S. District Court Nebraska U.S. District Court Nevada U.S. District Court New Hampshire U.S. District Court New Jersey U.S. District Court New Mexico U.S. District Court New York Eastern U.S. District Court New York Northern U.S. District Court New York Southern U.S. District Court New York Western U.S. District Court North Carolina Eastern U.S. District Court North Carolina Middle U.S. District Court North Carolina Western U.S. District Court North Dakota U.S. District Court Northern Mariana Islands U.S. District Court Ohio Northern U.S. District Court Ohio Southern U.S. District Court Oklahoma Eastern U.S. District Court Oklahoma Northern U.S. District Court Oklahoma Western U.S. District Court Oregon U.S. District Court Pennsylvania Eastern U.S. District Court Pennsylvania Middle U.S. District Court Pennsylvania Western U.S. District Court Puerto Rico U.S. District Court Rhode Island U.S. District Court South Carolina U.S. District Court South Dakota U.S. District Court Tennessee Eastern U.S. District Court Tennessee Middle U.S. District Court Tennessee Western U.S. District Court Texas Eastern U.S. District Court Texas Northern U.S. District Court Texas Southern U.S. District Court Texas Western U.S. District Court Utah U.S. District Court Vermont U.S. District Court Virgin Islands U.S. District Court Virginia Eastern U.S. District Court Virginia Western U.S. District Court Washington Eastern U.S. District Court Washington Western U.S. District Court West Virginia Northern U.S. District Court West Virginia Southern U.S. District Court Wisconsin Eastern U.S. District Court Wisconsin Western U.S. District Court Wyoming U.S. District Court Louisiana U.S. District Court Washington U.S. District Court West Virginia U.S. District Court Illinois Eastern U.S. District Court South Carolina Eastern U.S. District Court South Carolina Western U.S. District Court Alabama U.S. District Court U.S. District Court for the Canal Zone Georgia U.S. District Court Illinois U.S. District Court Indiana U.S. District Court Iowa U.S. District Court Michigan U.S. District Court Mississippi U.S. District Court Missouri U.S. District Court New Jersey Eastern U.S. District Court (East Jersey U.S. District Court) New Jersey Western U.S. District Court (West Jersey U.S. District Court) New York U.S. District Court North Carolina U.S. District Court Ohio U.S. District Court Pennsylvania U.S. District Court Tennessee U.S. District Court Texas U.S. District Court Virginia U.S. District Court Norfolk U.S. District Court Wisconsin U.S. District Court Kentucky U.S. Distrcrict Court New Jersey U.S. District Court California U.S. District Court Florida U.S. District Court Arkansas U.S. District Court District of Orleans U.S. District Court State Supreme Court State Appellate Court State Trial Court Eastern Circuit (of the United States) Middle Circuit (of the United States) Southern Circuit (of the United States) Alabama U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Alabama Arkansas U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Arkansas California U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of California Connecticut U.S. Circuit for the District of Connecticut Delaware U.S. Circuit for the District of Delaware Florida U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Florida Georgia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Georgia Illinois U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Illinois Indiana U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Indiana Iowa U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Iowa Kansas U.S. Circuit for the District of Kansas Kentucky U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Kentucky Louisiana U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Louisiana Maine U.S. Circuit for the District of Maine Maryland U.S. Circuit for the District of Maryland Massachusetts U.S. Circuit for the District of Massachusetts Michigan U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Michigan Minnesota U.S. Circuit for the District of Minnesota Mississippi U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Mississippi Missouri U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Missouri Nevada U.S. Circuit for the District of Nevada New Hampshire U.S. Circuit for the District of New Hampshire New Jersey U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of New Jersey New York U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of New York North Carolina U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of North Carolina Ohio U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Ohio Oregon U.S. Circuit for the District of Oregon Pennsylvania U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Pennsylvania Rhode Island U.S. Circuit for the District of Rhode Island South Carolina U.S. Circuit for the District of South Carolina Tennessee U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Tennessee Texas U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Texas Vermont U.S. Circuit for the District of Vermont Virginia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Virginia West Virginia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of West Virginia Wisconsin U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Wisconsin Wyoming U.S. Circuit for the District of Wyoming Circuit Court of the District of Columbia Nebraska U.S. Circuit for the District of Nebraska Colorado U.S. Circuit for the District of Colorado Washington U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Washington Idaho U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Idaho Montana U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Montana Utah U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Utah South Dakota U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of South Dakota North Dakota U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of North Dakota Oklahoma U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Oklahoma Court of Private Land Claims