482 CORRIE'S CASE.—2 BLAltfD.

* But, although the State has thus, by its Constitution,
504 withheld from all who may be entrusted with public author-
ity, all power over the religious or political opinions of its citizens,
infant or adult; yet it has a large interest in having her infants
educated under the influence of that very freedom which has been
secured to them. And, therefore, the Chancellor here, as in Eng-
land, looking to his constitutional duties, in this respecr, would not
suffer a guardian to send his ward abroad, or out of the United
States to be educated, where principles adverse to our institutions
must necessarily be inculcated, and might be too copiously imbibed.
Mountstnart v. Mountswttuart, 6 Vez. 373; De Manneville v. De Man-
neville, 10 Ves. 56; Lyons v. Blenlfin, 3 Cond. Cha. Rep. 115; Vattel,
b. 1, ch. 11,,v. 114. And although parents of infants may well be in-
dulged upon the ground of their own right to leave this country at
pleasure to take with them their infaut children wherever they may
go; Lashley v. Hog, Robin Succession, 430; yet the Court will not
allow a father, under the color of his parental authority, to work
the ruin of his child, or suffer the child to be in any way sacrificed
to his views; Creuze v. Hunter, 2 Cox, 242; nor will it concede to
any mere legal guardian an unlimited power to dispose of his ward
as he may think proper: since the State has a. deep interest in re-
taining and educating her own infants, with a view to her own
strength and improvement, Skinner v. Warner, 2 Dick. 779; Ex
parte Warner, 4 Bro. C. C. 101; Wellwlcy v. Beaufort, 3 Cond. Cha.
Rep. 14; Lyons v. Blenkin, 4 Cond. Cha. Rap. 115. Ami as an
infant cannot, of himself, acquire any domicil, but always retains
that of Ins parents, or of his origin, so his having been left here
as an orphan devolves upon the State a right to retain him within
its jurisdiction for its own benefit, as well as for his own advantage.
And therefore a guardian merely constituted such by law, is never
permitted, at his pleasure, to change the domicil of his ward for
any purpose, much less with a fraudulent intent to alter the rule
of succession to his property from that by which it would have
been governed according to the law of the domicil from which he
was removed. Somerville v. Somerrille, 5 Ves. 750; Potinger v.
Wightman, 3 Meriv. 68; Desesbats v. Berquier, 1 Bin. 336.

According to the established principles of international law, no
one nation can, under any pretext, interfere with the internal regu-
lations or domestic concerns of another; nor can any one nation
be allowed to withdraw from another any of its citizens, to impair
its strength, or to diminish its resources in any way whatever.
Subject, however, to these fundamental axioms, individuals are

permitted, * in time of peace, freely to migrate from one
505 nation to another, and to take with them their infant chil-
dren and property, or to have their movables transported any
where; provided they do so fairly and without prejudice to the
State, or to any one; as in the cases and upon the principles before