472 CORRIE'S CASE.—2 BLAND.

Upon the same general and fundamental principles of a duty to
itself, the State is bound to protect the property as well as the per-
sons of all "who abide, or suft'er their property to remain within its
domain. An alien friend may purchase and hold chattels, real,
and all kinds of personal property; and may freely transfer to any
place beyond the jurisdiction of the State, Iris movables, subject
however in general to such export duty as the State may think
proper to impose; and also subject, in cases of public expediency,
or on his becoming an alien enemy, to a total prohibition of re-
moving any of his property out of the State, so as thereby to
weaken it and strengthen its antagonist. This permission of re-
moval of personal property is, however granted with a, view to the
encouragement of commerce and the aggrandizement of the State;
and therefore, the exceptions to the rule, as well as the rule itself,
are derived from the same source, that of a duty which the State
owes to itself, as a whole; and as one which it owes to each of its
citizens in the protection of his interests by the general operation
of its laws. The free exportation of movables, which, in almost
all nations, has been treated as a kind of general license, which
may be withheld altogether; or subjected to the control of a heavy
tax, may, in the United States, in time of peace, be considered as
an almost unqualified right, since the Federal Constitution has
declared, that no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported
from any State. Const. U. S. Art. 1, s. 9, el. 5. But this consti-
tutional restriction relates to commercial regulations only, and to
taxes which might have been so imposed for the purpose of rais-
ing revenue for the benefit of the whole State. It cannot afi'ect
the right to detain and prevent the exportation of any such prop-
erty for the special benefit of any citizens of the State, and as a
means of enabling him to obtain satisfaction of a debt * due
494 to him from its owner. And therefore, even although the
exportation of such property may be regarded here as an absolute
right, yet the authority of a citizen creditor to seize it by a judi-
cial proceeding, and have its exportation totally prevented by a
sale for the satisfaction of his claim, is no more than the exercise
of an authority for his benefit which the State owes him as a duty.
Hence it is, that by our attachment Act and practice, and by some
similar judicial proceeding in all other countries, a citizen creditor
may obtain satisfaction of his claim from the property of his foreign
or absent debtor found within the jurisdiction of the State. 1715,
ch. 40; 1795, ch. 56; 1825, ch. 114; Burk v. McClain, 1 H. &. McH.
236; Shivers v. Wilson, 5 H. & J. 130; Barney v. Patterson, 6 H. & J.
182; Willis v. Pearee, 6 H. & J. 191, note; Mandeville v. Jarrett, 6
H. & J. 497; Taylor v. Phelps, 1 H. & G. 493; Manro v. Almeida,
10 Wheat. 473; Douglas v. Forrest, 15 Com. Lair Rep. 120; Chase
v. Manhardt, 1 Bland, 344.