which prevail in the absence of controlling statutes, and giving effect to the letter and spirit of what Congress has enacted, we think it is manifest that these heirs must be regarded as having received these lands as an inheritance from Freeland, and not as a direct allotment to them. Perryman v. Woodward, 238 U. S. 148, 150; Tailey v. Burgess, supra.

2. The first restrictions applicable to Creek lands such as these were embodied in § 22 of the Act of 1906, hereinbefore set forth. As respects the mother's conveyance, which was executed January 15, 1908, all that was necessary under that section to make the conveyance effectivethe mother being an adult full-blood Indian-was that it be approved by the Secretary of the Interior. As before shown, it was approved by that officer July 6, 1910. But it is urged that before his approval was given all power to approve had been taken from him and lodged elsewhere by the Act of May 27, 1908. Evidently the Secretary did not so construe that act when his approval was given, else he would have withheld it. Not only so, but his action in this instance was in accord with the practice of his office for a considerable period and also with an opinion rendered to him by the Attorney General. 27 Ops. A. G. 530. This administrative view is, of course, entitled to respect, and those who have relied thereon ought not lightly to be put in peril. But it is not controlling. We have examined the act, including § 9, upon which reliance is had, and are of opinion that as to conveyances made prior to the act the power of the Secretary to examine and approve or disapprove under § 22 of the prior enactment was not taken away. The act contains no express revocation of that power, nor any provision inconsistent with its continued exercise as to prior conveyances. The provision in § 9, that no conveyance of any interest of any full-blood Indian heir shall be valid "unless approved by the court having jurisdiction of the settlement of the

estate" of the deceased allottee, taken according to its natural import, prescribes a rule for future rather than prior conveyances; and no reason is perceived for rejecting its natural import. Had there been a purpose to cut off action by the Secretary as to conveyances already made, some of which were before him at the time, it is but reasonable to believe that other words aptly expressing that purpose would have been used. The matter hardly would have been left to conjecture or uncertain implication. Besides, the absence of such a purpose is measurably reflected by the declaration in § 1 that "the Secretary of the Interior shall not be prohibited by this Act from continuing to remove restrictions as heretofore." The lapse of two and one-half years between the execution of the conveyance and its approval is not material, there being no lawful intervening disposal. Pickering v. Lomax, 145 U. S. 310; Lykins v. McGrath, 184 U. S. 169.

3. Section 6 of the Act of 1908 subjects the persons and property of minor allottees to the jurisdiction of the probate courts of the State, and in a proviso says, "no restricted lands of living minors shall be sold or encumbered, except by leases authorized by law, by order of the court or otherwise." One ground on which the guardian's sale on behalf of the minor heirs, Amos and Elizabeth, is assailed is that it was in violation of this proviso. But in our opinion the proviso does not include or affect inherited lands. It refers, as a survey of the act shows, to lands of living minor allottees and not to lands inherited from deceased allottees. Section 9 expressly recognizes that the latter may be sold, and this proviso cannot be taken as prescribing the contrary. The word "living" evidently is intended to mark the distinction. What is intended is to make sure that minor allottees receive the benefit of the restrictions prescribed in § 1, and not to impose others. Apparently it was apprehended that the general language of § 6 might be taken as enabling probate

courts and guardians to sell without regard to those restrictions, and the office of the proviso is to prevent this. So understood, it is in accord with the general scheme of the act and not in conflict with any other provision.

4. The remaining objection to the guardian's conveyance is that it was not approved by the court having jurisdiction of the settlement of the estate of Freeland, the deceased allottee.

The situation out of which the objection arises is at least novel. Freeland died June 22, 1905, and the conveyance was made January 15, 1912. Statehood had intervened and counties had been organized where there were none before. He resided and died in what afterwards became Wagoner County, and under the local law the county court of that county is the one which at the time of the conveyance would have had jurisdiction of the settlement of his estate. The court in the Indian Territory which would have had such jurisdiction prior to statehood was no longer in existence. The conveyance was not approved by the county court of Wagoner County, but was approved by the county court of Okmulgee County, which under the local law was the only court having jurisdiction of the guardianship of the persons and property of the minors, Amos and Elizabeth. The lands were in that county and the minors, as also the other heirs, were residing there.

Section 6 of the Act of 1908 and other congressional enactments explicitly subject the persons and property of Indian minors of the Five Civilized Tribes to the jurisdiction of the probate courts of Oklahoma. In that State the county courts are the probate courts.

Section 9 of the same act declares:

"That the death of any allottee of the Five Civilized Tribes shall operate to remove all restrictions upon the alienation of said allottee's land: Provided, That no conveyance of any interest of any full-blood Indian heir in

such land shall be valid unless approved by the court having jurisdiction of the settlement of the estate of said deceased allottee."

If in this instance the same court had had jurisdiction of the guardianship of the minor heirs and of the settlement of the estate of the deceased allottee, no embarrassment would have ensued; but as that was not the case, the question arises, whether it was essential that the guardian's conveyance, directed and approved, as it was, by the court having control of the guardianship, should also be approved by the court having jurisdiction of the settlement of the deceased allottee's estate? The Circuit Court of Appeals answered in the negative; and, while the question is not free from difficulty, we think that solution of it is right.

Of course, the purpose in requiring any approval is to safeguard the interests of the full-blood Indian heir. Where he is a minor he can convey only through a guardian, and no court is in a better situation to appreciate and safeguard his interests than the one wherein the guardianship is pending. Besides, as a general rule, a guardianship carries with it exclusive power to direct the guardian and to supervise the management and disposal of the ward's property. It is so in Oklahoma. This rule is so widely recognized and so well grounded in reason that a purpose to depart from it ought not to be assumed unless manifested by some very clear or explicit provision. The Act of 1908 contains no manifestation of such a purpose outside the proviso in § 9. That proviso seems broad, but so is the provision in § 6 subjecting the persons and property of minor Indians to local guardianship. As both are in the same act, they evidently were intended to operate harmoniously and should be construed accordingly. The proviso does not mention minors under guardianship; and to regard its general words as including them will either take all supervision of the sale of their interest in

inherited lands from the court in which the guardianship is pending, or subject that court's action to the approval of another court of the same rank. In either event conflict and confusion will almost certainly ensue and be detrimental to the minor heirs. But, if the proviso be regarded, as well it may, as referring to heirs not under guardianship-in other words, to adult heirs-the two provisions will operate in entire harmony and all fullblood heirs will receive the measure of protection intended. We think this is the true construction.

No. 215. Argued October 13, 14, 1920.-Decided November 15, 1920.

1. A state tax upon the proportion of the net profits of a sister-state corporation earned by operations conducted within the taxing State, the enforcement of which is left to the ordinary means of collecting taxes, does not violate Art. I, §8, of the Federal Constitution by imposing a burden upon interstate commerce. P. 119. 2. In considering whether a state tax, purporting to be on the net income of a sister-state corporation earned within the taxing State, violates the Fourteenth Amendment by reaching income earned outside, it is not necessary to decide whether it is a direct tax on income or an excise measured by income. P. 120.

3. A state tax upon the income of a sister-state corporation manufacturing its product within the State but deriving the greater part of its receipts from sales outside the State, which attributes to processes conducted within, the State the proportion of the total net income which the value of real and tangible personal property