“ The Supreme Court of the State, although recognizing the invalidity of the leases under the congressional restrictions, construed and applied a statute of the state (section 3783, Rev. Laws 1910) as in effect requiring that the leases be regarded as creating a tenancy at will and controlling the compensation which the allottee could demand and the defendants should pay for the occupancy and use of the land. We of course must treat the local statute as intended to operate as that court say it does, and must determine its validity on that basis. ”

“ The power of Congress to impose restrictions on the right of Indian wards of the United States to alien or lease lands allotted to them in the division of the lands of their tribe is beyond question, and of course it is not competent for a state to enact or give effect to a local statute which disregards those restrictions or thwarts their purpose. ”

“ Tiger v. Western Investment Co., 221 U.S. 286, 316, 31 Sup. Ct. 578, 55 L. Ed. 738; Monson v. Simonson, 231 U.S. 341, 347, 34 Sup. Ct. 71, 58 L. Ed. 260; Brader v. James, 246 U.S. 88, 96, 38 Sup. Ct. 285, 62 L. Ed. ”