494 CORRIE'S CASE.

due to him from its owner. And therefore, even although the ex-
portation 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, (p)

The state would, however, fall short in this its duty, if it failed
to provide some means of securing satisfaction to its own citizens
as well from the property found here of their foreign insolvent or
deceased debtors, as from their foreign and solvent living debtors.
That provision of the federal constitution, which declares that the
citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and
immunities of citizens in the several states; (q) looks to other
privileges, such as the right to acquire and hold property, to take by
descent, and the like, and does not at all affect the duty which, in this-
respect, each of the several states of our Union owes to its own citi-
zens; (r) or that course of distribution consequent upon intestacy,
which, by the general comity prevailing among nations, is regu-
lated according to the testator's domicil. (s) The law of nations,
so far as it applies to the regulations of commerce, is, as in all
other respects, founded on principles of perfect reciprocity and
equality; and, therefore, it cannot be applied to cases which do
not admit of reciprocation and equality. In England, and in some
other countries, there are bankrupt laws; in this there are none.
Under the insolvent laws of some of the states of our Union, the
person of the debtor may be released from confinement, leaving all
his then held, or thereafter acquired property liable; but, under OUF
law, a debtor may be so absolutely discharged as to protect his
future acquisitions of property as well as his person. And, besides,
bankrupt and insolvent laws are not so much regulations of com-

(p) 1715, ch. 40; 1795, ch. 56; 1825, ch. 114; Burk v. McClain, 1 H. & McH.
286; Shivers v. Wilson, 5 H. & J. 130; Barney v. Patterson, 6 H. & J. 182 ;
Willes v. Pearce, 6 H. & J. 191, note; Mandeville v. Jarrett, 6 H. & J. 497; Tay-
lor v. Phelps, 1 H. & G. 403; Manro v. Almeida, 10 Wheat. 473; Douglas v. For-
rest, 15 Cora. Law Rep. 120; Chase v. Manhardt, 1 Bland, 344.— (g) Art. 4, s. 2,
cl. 1 —(r) Campbell v. Morris, 3 H. & McH. 535; Ward v. Morris, 4 H. & McH,
340,—(s) Thorne v. Watkins, 2 Ves. 36; 5 Ann. ch. 8, art. 4.