In Worcester v. Georgia (1832) 31 U.S. 515, the sovereignty of Indian tribes as "distinct, independent, political communities" qualified to exercise the powers of self-government was first definitively recognized. What has been described as "perhaps the most basic principle of all Indian law" is that the powers vested in an Indian tribe are not powers granted by express Acts of Congress, but rather inherent powers of a limited sovereignty which has never been extinguished. The scope and stature of this sovereignty was avouched by Chief Justice Marshall in Worcester (supra, at 556.) "From the commencement of our government, congress has passed acts to regulate trade and intercourse with the Indians, which treat them as nations, respect their rights, and manifest a firm purpose to afford that protection which treaties stipulate." The Court struck down a state law which attempted to regulate certain actions of white persons and Indians, Chief Justice Marshall stated (p 561): "The whole intercourse between the United States and this Indian nation, is, by our constitution and laws, vested in the government of the United States." The opinion of Chief Justice Marshall developed the subject at great length. The gist of the opinion is that Indian nations and tribes are distinct political entities, having territorial boundaries within which their authority is exclusive; that within their borders they have their own Government, laws and courts, and are not subject to the laws of the State in which they are located or to the laws of the United States, except where Federal laws are made applicable to them by Congressional enactment, and that Federal courts are without jurisdiction unless jurisdiction is expressly conferred by Congressional enactment. In that case the State sought to punish a white man, licensed by the Federal Government to practice as a missionary among the Cherokees, for his refusal to leave the Reservation. Rendering one of his most courageous and eloquent opinions, Chief Justice Marshall held that Georgia's assertion of power was invalid. "The Cherokee nation . . . is a distinct community, occupying its own territory . . . in which the laws of Georgia can have no force, and which the citizens of Georgia have no right to enter, but with the assent of the Cherokees themselves, or in conformity with treaties, and with the acts of congress. The whole intercourse between the United States and this nation, is, by our constitution and laws, vested in the government of the United States." Justice McLean stated (p 582): "The language used in treaties with the Indians should never be construed to their prejudice. How the words of the treaty were understood by this unlettered people, rather than their critical meaning, should form the rule of construction." In Worcester v. Georgia, the United States Supreme Court acknowledged the extent of these congressional powers as they relate to Indian affairs: "The constitution of the United States confers on Congress the powers of war and peace; of making treaties, and of regulating commerce with foreign nations, . . . and with the Indian tribes. These powers comprehend all that is required for the regulation of our intercourse with the Indians. . . ." Chief Justice Marshall recognized that the power of regulation and control by the federal government of the Indian tribes must be found within the constitution. He puts his conclusion on that matter in two sentences (p. 559): "That instrument the constitution confers on congress the powers of war and peace; of making treaties, and of regulating commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes. These powers comprehend all that is required for the regulation of our intercourse with the Indians.. . ."