William Bauchop Wilson to Woodrow Wilson

During the discussion of questions of expatriation at a Cabinet Meeting a few days ago, I stated that for the purpose of administering the Immigration Law this Department had decided that the taking of an oath by an American citizen as a soldier in a foreign Army does not constitute expatriation. In taking this ground, I believe we are justified by the history and intent of the expatriation legislation. The law was enacted at the instance of the State Department for the purpose of overcoming certain complications arising in foreign countries by virtue of a dual citizenship. So far as I have been able to learn, there was no intent on the part of Congress to expatriate an American citizen who through a spirit of adventure or love of human liberty enlists in a foreign army and takes the oath that soldiers are required to subscribe to.
There was considerable of a furor created by Mr. Viereck and other German propagandists in the latter part of 1915 and the beginning of 1916 when the first case of this kind was passed upon by the Department and its decision given to the public. In order that you may more fully understand my attitude in dealing with the subject matter and the interpretation I have placed upon the law for immigration purposes, I am inclosing herewith copy of a letter submitted to Congressman Patten of New York under date of January 6, 1916. Your attention is particularly directed to that part beginning at the middle of page 3. Since this policy was adopted, Judge Ray, in the Northern District of New York, has decided that an American citizen enlisting in the Canadian Army and subscribing to the oath required is thereby expatriated. The case he considered has not been appealed. While Judge Ray's opinion is a very elaborate exposition of the law, I have not been inclined to accept it as conclusive for three reasons: First, because I am not convinced that it was the intent of Congress that acts of this character should constitute expatriation; second, because the higher courts have not passed upon it; and, third, because the case upon which the opinion was rendered was one in which the person denied admission had deserted from the Canadian Army and consequently had not concluded the period of allegiance to Great Britain obligated by his oath.The President,The White House.Incl.