CORRIE'S CASE. 493

sumed here, that the Chancellor is that judicial officer by whom
the state discharges its duties in the care of its infants and luna-
tics in all cases where the care of them has not been otherwise
specially and expressly provided for; (j) as by the jurisdiction
conferred on the Orphans Courts; (k) or upon the trustees of the
poor; (l) or by the establishment of alms houses, (m) hospitals, (n)
and the like.

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 suffer 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, his moveables, subject
however in general to such export duty as the state may think pro-
per to impose; and also subject, in cases of public expediency, or
on his becoming an alien enemy, to a total prohibition of removing
any of his property out of the state, so as thereby to weaken it
and strengthen its antagonist. This permission of removal of per-
sonal property is, however, granted with a view to the encourage-
ment of commerce and the aggrandizement of the state; and there-
fore, the exceptions to the rule, as well as the rule itself, are de-
rived 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 citi-
zens in the protection of his interests by the general operation of
its laws. The free exportation of moveables, which, in almost all
nations, has been treated as a kind of general licence, 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* (o) But this constitutional restriction relates to commercial
regulations only, and to taxes which might have been so imposed
for the purpose of raising revenue for the benefit of the whole state.
It cannot affect the right to detain and prevent the exportation of
any such property for the special benefit of any citizen of the state,
and as a means of enabling him to obtain satisfaction of a debt

(j) Wellesley v. Beaufort, 3 Cond. Cha. Rep. 10; Ex parte Francis Lee, a luna-
tic, 7 June, 1718; Chancery Proceedings, lib. P. L, fol. 469.—(k) 1798, ch. 101,
sub ch. 12; Bac. Abr. tit. Customs of London, B.—(1) 1793, ch. 45; Lunatic Pe-
titions, 2 Atk. 52; I Collin. Idiots, 604.—(»*) 1T08, ch. 29, &c.—-(n) 1797, ch. 102,
&c.—(o) Const. U. S. art. 1, s. 9, cl. 5.
63 v.2