On this occasion, the most important requirement is that of intent. This is the requirement that has been most argued. And here I go back to that original Latin phrase which dominates this case, and which is in itself an all-sufficient rule: I mean the _animus manendi_. Why is this phrase, so often repeated, handed down for successive centuries? Simply because, like maxims of law, or like proverbs, it contains in one short phrase a rule. You have there a chapter of jurisprudence, if you please, or a volume. It is the mind, or the intent to remain, which governs. This is all that the law says. The law does not go forward and require, as the Senator from Illinois has argued to-day, that there must be an act. You find no such requirement in the rule. The rule is explicit, precise; and here I challenge contradiction. It is simply the intent to remain, the _animus manendi_. Step beyond that and you are lost, if you undertake to state the law. There is no rule of law outside of this simple sum-total. I come, then, to the point that we have before us, simply a question of intent. I might cite authorities here. I have some of them before me. I will read one. For instance, here is Vattel, quoted by Judge Story in his article on DOMICILE in the “Encyclopædia Americana,” which Senators familiar with this subject know is of authority:-- “Vattel seems to define it to be a fixed residence in any place with an intention of always staying there.”[4] On this Judge Story very properly remarks:-- “This is not quite accurate. It would be more correct to say that that place is the home or domicile of a person in which his habitation is fixed, without any present intention of removing therefrom.” Here are words completely applicable to the case now before us. The learned author then proceeds to say:-- “It is often a mere question of intention.” And then adds:-- “The mere dwelling or residence in a place is not of itself sufficient to make it the domicile of the party. He must be there with the intention of remaining, _animo manendi_.” Mark the old recurring phrase, with its light and limitation. Here again I say is the rule. You cannot go outside of it. If you go outside of it, you are lost. I am speaking of the rule of law. I know that there can be no addition to that, because, if you do undertake to add to it or to take from it, you must depart from the jurisprudence of every civilized country,--not only of our own country, not only of England, but of every civilized nation on the continent of Europe. In the jurisprudence of every one of those countries you will find this same distinct, precise, simple rule.