[89] Brown _v._ U. S., 8 Cranch, 110; American Insurance Co. _v._ Canter, 1 Peters, 511; Lamar _ex._ _v._ Browne _et al._, 92 U. S., 187; Mormon Church _v._ U. S., 136 U. S., 1. [90] Hepburn _v._ Ellzey, 2 Cranch, 445 (1804). [91] Barron _v._ Baltimore, 7 Peters, 243 (1833). [92] Metropolitan R. R. Co. _v._ District of Columbia, 132 U. S., 1 (1889). [93] Ft. Leavenworth R. R. Co. _v._ Lowe, 114 U. S., 525 (1885). [94] Art. iv., 3. [95] Dorr _v._ U. S., 195 U. S., 138 (1904); Hawaii _v._ Mankichi, 190 U. S., 197 (1903); Dooley _v._ U. S., 183 U. S., 151 (1901); Downes _v._ Bidwell, 182 U. S. (1901); Rasmussen _v._ U. S., 197 U. S., Weems _v._ U. S., 217 U. S., 349. (But see dissenting opinions in above cases.) [96] Downes _v._ Bidwell, _supra_, and cases and laws therein cited and quoted. [97] _Idem._ [98] There are powerful dissenting opinions in the various Insular Cases. The chief objection to the unlimited control of insular territory by Congress is that Congress itself, by the Constitution, possesses only limited powers. How can a limited Congress exercise unlimited powers? [99] Downes _v._ Bidwell, _supra_. (The Court cites, in confirmation, the history of Congress and of the British Parliament.) [100] Bank of Commerce _v._ New York City, 2 Black, 620 (1862) quoting from McCulloch _v._ Maryland, 4 Wheaton, 431 (1819). The principle is laid down in the decision that “the sovereignty of a State extends to everything which exists by its own authority, or is introduced by its permission; but it does not extend to these means which are employed by Congress to carry into execution powers conferred on that body by the people of the United States.” _Id._ 429. [101] Bank of Commerce _v._ New York City, _supra_. [102] Loan Association _v._ Topeka, 20 Wallace, 655 (1874), quoting Cooley on _Constitutional Limitations_, 479. [103] P. R. Co. _v._ Pennsylvania, 15 Wallace, 300 (1872). The constitutional use of the taxing power by the United States and by the several States is examined by Hamilton in _The Federalist_, No. xxxii.,—the classic contemporaneous exposition of the taxing clauses of the Constitution. For a judicial examination of these clauses see Transportation Company _v._ Wheeling, 99 U. S., 273 (1878). The idea held both by Hamilton and by the Court is that taxation is the exercise of sovereign power; that “all subjects over which the sovereign power of a State extends are objects of taxation,” but that “objects over which it does not extend, as for example, the means and instruments of the general government, are exempt from taxation.” (The quotation in Transportation Co. _v._ Wheeling, from McCulloch _v._ Maryland is not verbally accurate.) [104] The phrase (_Federalist_, No. lxii.) may be Hamilton’s or Madison’s. [105] P. R. Co., _v._ Pennsylvania, 15 Wallace, 300. [106] This principle applies also in international law. [107] The principle is established in McCulloch _v._ Maryland.