Title: Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners

State: new-mexico

Issuer: New Mexico Supreme Court

Document:

291 P.2d 607 (1955) 60 N.M. 304 Rudolph SCHWARE, Petitioner, v. BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS OF the State of NEW MEXICO. No. 5847. Supreme Court of New Mexico. September 7, 1955. Dissenting Opinion September 30, 1955. Rehearing Denied December 19, 1955. P. H. Dunleavy, Albuquerque (Key & Brown, Edward G. Parham, Albuquerque, on motion for rehearing only), for petitioner. Richard H. Robinson, Atty. Gen., Fred M. Standley, Asst. Atty. Gen., William A. Sloan, Albuquerque, for respondent. McGHEE, Justice. This matter is before us on a pleading we treat as a petition to review the action of the State Board of Bar Examiners in denying the application of Rudolph Schware to take the examination for admission to practice law in this state. In December, 1953, the petitioner applied for leave to take the bar examination in February, 1954. He was advised by letter that he would be entitled to do so. When he presented himself for examination he was interviewed by the Board of Bar Examiners. No transcript was made of this interview, but at its close the following action was taken by the board: A second hearing was held before the board on July 16, 1954, and transcript made thereof. At the conclusion of this hearing the board was of the unanimous opinion the former determination should stand. It is agreed by all that this court has plenary jurisdiction to review the decision of the board. In re Gibson, 1931, 35 N.M. 550, 4 P.2d 643; In re Royall, 1928, 33 N.M. 386, 268 P. 570. In such review this court is not limited by appellate rules, but the matter is considered originally. The substance of petitioner's argument is made under two points, the first of which is: The right to practice law is a property right protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States. Under this point reference is made to the cases of Ex parte Garland, 1866, 4 Wall. 333, 71 U.S. 333, 18 L. Ed. 366, and Cummings v. The State of Missouri, 1866, 4 Wall. 277, 71 U.S. 277, 18 L. Ed. 356. In the latter case it is said: It is not necessary to class membership in the legal profession with ownership of real estate or other tangible article in order to recognize an individual has a right therein. We regard as inutile an attempt to categorize it at all. But, granting that such membership is a species of property, as that word is employed in the Constitution, it does not follow, and we do not take it as contended by petitioner, that the right to its enjoyment is absolute and unfettered by any mode of regulation. In an annotation in 98 L. Ed. 851, at p. 852, substantive due process in its application to the type of property with which we are here concerned is described in the following language: The board acted under Rule III of the Rules Governing Admission to the Bar of New Mexico, which provides "that the Board of Bar Examiners may decline to permit any such applicant to take the (bar) examination when not satisfied of his good moral character." We do not see how this requirement, which in the same or similar language is universal in this country so far as we know, Annotation 72 A.L.R. 929, can seriously be challenged as unreasonable. Judge Cardozo has this to say of the requirement of good moral character upon admission to the bar, and afterward: The cases are numerous, too, which hold that by asking admission into the legal profession an applicant places his good moral character directly in issue and bears the burden of proof as to that issue. Spears v. State Bar, 1930, 211 Cal. 183, 294 P. 697, 72 A.L.R. 923; In re Wells, 1917, 174 Cal. 467, 163 P. 657; Rosencranz v. Tidrington, 1923, 193 Ind. 472, 141 N.E. 58, 28 A.L.R. 1136; In re Weinstein, 1935, 150 Or. 1, 42 P.2d 744. Thus we are brought up to the controverted, substantial question before us of whether the petitioner has produced proof of his good moral character so as to entitle him to take the examination for membership in the bar of this state, as contended by him under his second point. An examination of this sort is concerned ultimately with the subjective character of the individual. Character cannot be laid upon a table, so we must resort to two kinds of indirect evidence: First, the pattern of conduct an individual follows, and, second, a consideration of the regard his fellows and associates have for him. This investigatory technique can, at best, but dimly throw into relief the architecture of character; still, it is all we have. In this particular inquiry the technique leads us through petitioner's own disclosures to behavior which cannot be severed from a social ideology which now stands athwart so much of the Eastern World dividing men from men Communism. The legal status of the Communist Party in the United States is far different today from that which obtained during the years of the Depression and following, when petitioner was a member of it. He calls our attention to the fact that as late as 1948 the Communist Party was a recognized political party and had candidates for the Presidency of the United States every four years up to and including 1948. We do not overlook the fact that during the years petitioner was a member of the Young Communist League and the Communist Party, from 1932 to 1940, such membership was not unlawful. But that fact does not restrain us from examining his former associations and actions, including his arrests and his use of aliases, and his present attitude toward those matters, as contained in his statements to the board, in order to arrive at a conclusion as to his character. As said in American Communications Ass'n v. Douds, 1950, 339 U.S. 382, 411, 70 S. Ct. 674, 690, 94 L. Ed. 925, "the state of a man's mind must be inferred from the things he says or does." It is generally held that an inquiry into character preceding admission to the bar is different from the inquiry had upon proceedings to disbar. This is already exemplified in part by our earlier reference to the rule that an applicant bears the burden of proof of good character. It is also to be noted in the scope of inquiry. It is said in In re Wells, supra [174 Cal. 467, 163 P. 661]: Similarly, in In re Farmer, 1926, 191 N.C. 235, 131 S.E. 661, 663, we find this statement: Before proceeding to examine the record as to the matters assigned by the board for its refusal to endorse the petitioner, "the use of aliases by the applicant, his former connection with subversive organizations, and his record of arrests", it should be stated that only one member of this court has looked at the contents of what might be termed the "confidential file", which contains answers to inquiries which the bar examiners cause to be mailed out regarding applicants who have not theretofore practiced law, the answers being returned to the clerk of this court, who is also the secretary of the Board of Bar Examiners. That member is the Honorable H.A. Kiker. In making this statement the writer and the remainder of the court do not intend that any reflection should be cast upon that justice in his examination of materials not made available to the petitioner. The statement is made for the sole purpose of advising petitioner that, regardless of whether this court has power to examine and rely upon "confidential" information about an applicant for admission to the bar, on which question we make no pronouncement, its members, with the single exception noted, have chosen not to do so. Also, at the oral argument here, and in its response and brief, the board disclaims having based its decision upon such information. As the facts before us are the history of a man, they are best stated in narrative form. The petitioner was born in New York in 1914. His father was a needles trade worker, an immigrant, a poor man and a socialist. Petitioner began work at the age of nine and continued part-time work during his school years. He attended DeWitt Clinton High School in the Bronx, New York, from 1928 to 1932. In 1932, at the age of eighteen, he joined the Young Communist League. This association arose out of the following circumstances, as described by petitioner: In connection with the refusal to disband the club, petitioner was suspended from school for about three days. Petitioner joined the Communist Party in 1934 at the age of twenty. In 1933 petitioner was employed in a pocketbook factory in Gloversville, New York. For the first time he used an alias. In his written application to take the bar examination he stated with regard to the alias: At the July, 1954, hearing, the petitioner said of the use of this alias: From February, 1934, to February, 1937, petitioner lived in Los Angeles, San Pedro, San Francisco and Berkeley, California, where he was employed in shipyard work, as a longshoreman and warehouseman, and part of the time as a seaman. During this period he used the alias Rudolph de Caprio. During the maritime strike in 1934 petitioner was arrested a number of times and was booked under the alias of Joe Fliari, or Fliori. Of his use of the alias, Rudolph de Caprio in California, petitioner testified at the hearing before the board: When it was called to petitioner's attention that he had explained the original use of an alias on the basis that he would be more effective as a labor organizer in organizing *612 workers of Italian extraction, and that at the hearing he explained the use of aliases as solely for the purpose of obtaining employment, he testified he used the aliases for both reasons. On his use of the alias Joe Fliari, or Joe Fliori, upon his arrests, and of the circumstances of the arrests, petitioner testified: In the Communist Party petitioner used either the name Rudy DeCaprio or Joe Fliori. He could not recall which one. In February, 1937, petitioner's father died and he returned to New York. At this time he left the Communist Party. He described this break with the Party as follows: In the years between May of 1937 and January of 1943, petitioner worked for a short time in Chicago, then in Texas at a vegetable processing plant, then in Indianapolis picking corn. He was intermittently hitch-hiking and looking for work, and finally came to Detroit. He testified as to the time spent in Detroit as follows: In Detroit he was again approached to rejoin the Communist Party, which he did. He states of this reaffiliation: Petitioner was arrested in Detroit in 1940 in connection with the Neutrality Act of 1816, when he was engaged in obtaining recruits to oppose Franco's forces in the Spanish Civil War. He had himself volunteered to go to Spain to fight, but was unsuccessful in getting passage there. He states of this arrest: The charges under which he was arrested in Detroit were terminated by nolle prosequi filed on behalf of the government. From 1940 to 1943 the petitioner had scattered employment, working part of the time as a truck driver. He was arrested in 1940 or 1941 in a town in Texas, the name of which he could not recall, on a charge of "suspicion of transporting a stolen vehicle." He stated he was driving the car to California for a friend and after being held while the police presumably *614 inquired into the ownership of the car and his right to possession of it, he was released. In response to a question in petitioner's written application to take the bar examination asking that he state every residence he had had since he was sixteen years of age, and indicating the name of the city and state, the street address and the period of time by month and year of each separate residence were to be given, petitioner stated that he had had ten different residences during the period March, 1934 to January, 1943, the latter date being the time he was inducted into the United States Army. He lived in California, New York, Illinois, Texas, Michigan and Indiana. He could recall only two street addresses. One was the home of his family in New York where he spent three months in 1937; the other was an address in South Bend, Indiana, where he lived approximately two years. Another question on petitioner's application form sought information as to all employments he had had since the age of sixteen years, specifically asking for the time periods of such employment, exact addresses of offices or places where employed and the names and present addresses of all former employers. From March, 1934, to November, 1935, petitioner was employed as a machinist's helper at Bethlehem Shipbuilding Company, Terminal Island, San Pedro, California. He could not recall the names of his superiors. He left there to join the merchant marine. He then spent five months as a seaman, first on a freighter. He could not recall the name of the ship, but believed he worked for the Calmar Line, making no statement as to the whereabouts of its offices. Then he left that employment to sail on a steam schooner plying the Pacific Coast. He made no statement as to the name of his employer, or otherwise identified the schooner. After that he worked ten months as a longshoreman on the docks in San Francisco, Oakland and Berkeley, California. Then, after a trip to New York at the time of his father's death he worked in a grocery store for some four months. He could not recall the name of the store or the owner. He worked two months in a vegetable processing plant in Rio Hondo, Texas. He could not recall the name of the plant or the owner. The application states that from March, 1938 to June, 1940, he was in Detroit working with the Wayne County Workers Alliance and the Michigan Workers Alliance. The offices were located on Grand River Avenue. He gives no names of associates. Upon leaving this work he was unemployed for a while and then became regularly employed as a truck driver in South Bend, Indiana for about two and a half years. One company for which he worked went out of business when the 1942 car production was halted. He gives the name of the company, the owner and the office address of his last employer in South Bend, which corresponds with the period of time for which he had given a residence address as earlier noted. This brought him up to the time when he was inducted into the army. The summation of all this is that for approximately nine years petitioner has provided only one residence address other than the home of his parents in New York. Over that period he has given only one personal name of an employer, for whom he also gave a completed street address in South Bend, Indiana, and only the street name for the location of the two Workers Alliances he was connected with in Detroit. This adds up to only slightly more than a complete blank. If it were not for the fact that petitioner had such a tenuous existence during those years, his inability to recall with more definiteness the location of his residences and the names and locations of his employers would be entirely void of explanation. Petitioner was drafted into the Army in January, 1944, and served until 1946, when he was honorably discharged. He lived in South Bend, Indiana from 1946 to 1950, during which time he was self-employed in the sale of venetian blinds and also attended Western Michigan College. In 1950 he enrolled in the Law School of the University of New Mexico. He discussed with the dean of that school his *615 former affiliation with the Communist Party. When questioned by one of the bar examiners at the hearing as to whether it had ever occurred to him that his experience and membership in the Communist Party and his activities in that organization would affect him in his ability to be admitted to the bar, he stated: Petitioner married in 1944. He has two children. Nine letters which he wrote to his wife while in the armed services in 1944 were offered by him in evidence as corroborative of his claim to be converted from Communism and to be of good moral character. The Rabbi of a synagogue in Albuquerque testified the petitioner was a member of his congregation in good standing, that his children received religious training. While in law school petitioner established an anonymous scholarship of $50 a year to be given to needy law students, which he has continued and hopes to continue indefinitely. Some seventeen letters from law professors and students and business associates were introduced into the record stating that petitioner is a person of good moral character, these letters being from persons who have known the petitioner in New Mexico. Burdensome though it be to the reader, there is still more of the record of petitioner's hearing before the board which must be covered. He testified, on questions by the board members, regarding his knowledge of Communist aims and methods. This testimony is somewhat extensive and we quote only part of it: Throughout the record of this hearing petitioner asserts that he left the Communist Party because he was disillusioned with its leaders and further that he came to the realization that it was the individual that counted, rather than the all-powerful state advocated by Communism. There is to us a lack of credibility in petitioner's testimony as to the extent of his disillusionment with the leaders and the philosophy of Communism, for we find in one of the letters to his wife written in 1944, four years after his break with the Party, which his attorney offered in evidence along with others to show what was in petitioner's heart during the year they were written, these assertions: We cannot believe that the foregoing letter is the letter of a man who four years previously had battled within himself and repudiated Communism as a quest for power by a few, as he declares to have done. No doubt the introduction of this letter by petitioner was inadvertent, but it tells us what was in his heart. He would still the voice of all who would criticize Communism. There was certainly nothing inadvertent about petitioner's membership in the Communist Party from 1934 to 1940, when he was twenty to twenty-seven years of age. We agree with the Board of Bar Examiners *617 that these are responsible years. During them his activities were largely connected with the labor movement in this country, as an organizer working out of the Communist Party. We have no reason on the record before us to credit him with a lack of knowledge of the purposes, aims and machinery of that Party in the United States. The foundation of the Communist "theology" is laid bare in Justice Jackson's concurring opinion in American Communications Ass'n v. Douds, cited supra, beginning at page 422 of 339 U.S., at page 695 of 70 S.Ct., in the following numbered statements. We omit the exposition which in the opinion follows these statements, in the interest of brevity, but commend a full reading of the entire opinion for a clear and startling picture. We believe one who has knowingly given his loyalties to such a program and belief for six to seven years during a period of responsible adulthood is a person of questionable character. We do not think it an exaggeration to say that many have doubtless been denied entry into or expelled from membership in the legal profession for far less serious offenses against ethic. We think, also, that the conclusion is warranted that petitioner has erased in his own conscience any culpability attaching to the use of aliases upon the bases he thought it necessary to hide his ancestry to secure employment. He does not today appear to us to bear the weight of this deception upon his employers and the police as a dishonesty, but simply as an excusable expedient. Furthermore, he excuses his arrests in California upon the ground that many others were arrested, too. With respect to the arrest in Detroit, for activity in violation of a federal statute, we take it that he regards his work in obtaining recruits for a foreign war as even commendable because he had concluded which side was right. On the basis of these considerations we must approve the recommendation of the Board of Bar Examiners. This board is comprised of leaders of the legal profession in this state. One of its members is a former district judge, and another is at this time a member of the Board of Governors of the American Bar Association. They are responsible, experienced attorneys. They questioned the petitioner, heard him and observed his demeanor. At a time before the formal hearing before the board, the petitioner wrote a letter to the board asking that he be permitted to appear before this court, but, on May 21, 1954, this request was withdrawn as being premature and was never renewed. We take no pleasure in the duty we have had to perform, for no man is all good or all bad. The record on which this decision is based came from the petitioner himself, who presently enjoys good repute among his teachers, his fellow students and associates and in his synagogue. But our obligation to the bar of this state knows no compromise. Petitioner has sought an office difficult to obtain and difficult to serve. The oath required of attorneys in New Mexico, based upon § 18-1-9, 1953 Comp., reads as follows: To hold otherwise than we do, we would have to state that the petitioner has proved to us that he is a man of good moral character for the purpose of being given the office of attorney. We do not hold this conviction. Accordingly, it must be ruled that petitioner's application to take the bar examination of the State of New Mexico is denied. It is so ordered. COMPTON, C.J., and LUJAN and SADLER, JJ., concur. KIKER, J., to file dissenting opinion at later date. KIKER, Justice (dissenting). The applicant after being notified, according to the record, that he might take the examination and after having appeared on the date the examination was to begin was interviewed by the members of the Board of Bar Examiners and then told he would not be allowed to take the examination. The reasons given by the Board for declining to allow the applicant to take the examination were contained in a motion which was unanimously carried: After applicant had been denied the privilege of taking the examination, he wrote a letter to the Board in which he said: Later, in the month of July 1954, the applicant was given a hearing before the Board. At this hearing the applicant testified at length this was at Albuquerque. In addition to the applicant the following witnesses testified briefly in his behalf: Mrs. Schware, applicant's wife; Rabbi Moshay P. Mann of Albuquerque, who is the Rabbi of the Congregation B'Nai Israel; Julia R. McCulloch, secretary to the dean of the law school at the University of New Mexico; and Monroe Fox, an attorney practicing at Chama. There were also seventeen letters which applicant got from students at the law school from professors present at the University when applicant was getting together testimony as to his character. At that hearing no witnesses appeared to show want of good character on the part of applicant. The result of the hearing was that the Board of Bar Examiners affirmed the position taken by it at the time applicant applied for the examination on February 26, 1954 and so the application stood denied by the Board of Bar Examiners until the opinion of the majority was filed. The majority, in the opinion, discusses the three reasons assigned by the Board of *619 Examiners for refusing to allow applicant to take the examination February 26, 1954. The first of these is the use of aliases beginning more than twenty years before the date of the examination and continuing from time to time over a period of approximately eight years. When applicant was eighteen years of age, after graduating from high school, he worked for a time in a hotel at Monticello, New York. Leaving Monticello on his way into New York City, he came to a town called Gloversville where a large part of the population was Italian and where the workers at the factory were practically all Italian. He applied for a job and adopted the name of Rudolph Di Caprio and used that name while working there. He gave two reasons for the use of this name at different times and the majority seems to think the reasons are wholly inconsistent and show a tendency to falsehood. He explained in his application that since practically all the workers were Italian he thought in order to organize a union he would be more effective using the Italian name. He was dark and could easily pass for Italian. He stated at the hearing that he used this alias at the factory for the purpose of getting a job and did get a job working with Italians at that factory. I do not see any great inconsistency between the two statements. Being a Jew, he must have felt as he said he did, that he probably could not get a job there and he would be unable to organize a union if he did. When the workers were organized into a local union, they affiliated with the A.F. of L. after which applicant left for his home in New York City and resumed use of his own name. There is no evidence to show that the A.F. of L. failed to investigate the union before taking it into its organization as an affiliate and I have never heard of the A.F. of L. being charged with being Communist or having engaged in any subversive activities. The statement made by applicant, as shown in the majority opinion, discloses the fact that he worked in Los Angeles, San Pedro, San Francisco and Berkeley, California from 1934 to 1937 and during that time he worked under the name of Rudolph Di Caprio. He explained this fact stating that at none of the places where he worked in shipyards, as longshoreman and warehouseman were any Jews employed. The employees were almost entirely Italian and so applicant used the name Di Caprio. There is no hint or suggestion in the record made at the hearing given applicant in Albuquerque that he at any time used the name for the purpose of defrauding any person. Applicant also used another Italian alias on the occasions of several arrests about which he told the Board of Bar Examiners. The name used was Joe Fliari or Joe Fliori. He told the Board that he made a special trip to California for the purpose of ascertaining the number of times he was arrested at San Pedro. He stated that he was arrested twice in the course of a strike and that approximately three thousand people were arrested during the period of sixty-six days of the strike and that of these, two hundred men, of whom he was one, were arrested on a charge of suspicion of criminal syndicalism. He had been working under the name of Rudolph Di Caprio before being arrested, but when arrested he gave the police the name of Joe Fliori. He state that it had been a long time since the arrest occurred and that he supposed that the reasons for using that alias was fear that the company for which he had been working might not allow him to return to work. Nobody was or could have been defrauded by the use of that name. It is not shown that applicant intended to defraud anybody by its use. In 1940 applicant was arrested in Detroit on a charge of violation of the Neutrality Act which became Federal Law in 1818 and which was revised in 1909 and now appears as Sec. 959, Title 18 U.S.C. 1952 Ed.; since 1909 the law has not changed and was in effect in 1940 and is as follows: The majority opinion quotes briefly a portion of the testimony given by applicant at the close of his examination with reference to the Detroit arrest. I quote that which precedes that quoted by the majority. Though the applicant used the words "I, myself, had volunteered to go to Spain" in that quotation it cannot be said he had enlisted or entered himself, or hired or retained any other to enlist or enter himself or that he at any time went beyond the jurisdiction of the United States with intent to be enlisted or enter service of any foreign people as a soldier or other warrior. From that which is contained in the record he could not have been convicted if he had been tried on this charge as plainly appears from the wording of the statute and from the only testimony offered on this subject. Applicant was again arrested at some town in Texas the name of which town he does not remember, while driving a car for a friend to California. According to the sole testimony on the subject he had all the papers authorizing him to take the car from Detroit to California for a friend. He had taken the southern route through Texas because it was wintertime. The police held him, though he had all papers authorizing him to have the car in possession, for two or three days then released him and returned all his possessions taken from him. No charges were ever preferred against him on that charge. The record does not show which name he used in this arrest. It does show in other testimony that applicant, after he left the Communist party in 1940, used the name which he acquired at birth, at all times; but even if he had made use of the name Joe Fliori which he did when arrested on other occasions, I think it would have made no difference, as there is positively nothing in the record to show anybody was defrauded or that it was intended by applicant by the use of an alias at any time that anybody should be defrauded or wrongfully deceived. *621 The exact date when the Texas arrest occurred doesn't show in the Transcript of the hearing held at Albuquerque but after leaving the Communist party in 1940 applicant got work and being in Detroit a friend arranged with him to drive his car out to California, so that the incident must have occurred in 1940. The record does show that during at least eleven years before applying to take the examination, applicant used his own name on all occasions. The use of an alias when it is not intended to and does not deceive another, or others, to their injury and when it does not defraud another, or others, is not unlawful. 65 C.J.S., Names, § 9 a, states: See the multitude of cases cited therein in this regard. Some years ago, to illustrate, I was asked by a worthy New Mexico citizen who had been long in business in New Mexico and who was a well established and highly respected citizen in his community, to institute the necessary proceeding to change his name. I inquired as to what name he desired to take and he said, "the name by which you have known me for a good many years". It developed that he was of Polish extraction and the name of his father was so lengthy that when he went to work for another in the business for which his training qualified him he shortened his name and had been known by the assumed name for many years. I explained to him that he might go on permanently using the name he adopted without resort to any court, but his desire to have a judgment of a court in the matter was founded on the thought that he might sometime want to make a trip to the country his parents came from and that he might have difficulty obtaining a passport under the name of his birth since he had been known so long under another name. A judgment of court was obtained according to his desire; but the statute under which the proceeding was instituted was permissive only and did not require my client so to proceed. To further illustrate, some of the greatest people in history have been better known by an alias than by the name of their birth. Mark Twain is better known than is Samuel L. Clemens; Mr. Dooley is far better known to people of my generation than is F. Peter Dunne; O. Henry is probably better known than is William Sydney Porter; Abraham is far better known than is Abram, the original name of the same man; Paul the Apostle is far better known, I think, than Saul of Tarsus, his former name. Many of the most prominent actors and actresses who have worked in Hollywood since the establishment of the motion picture enterprise in that city have been known by names other than the names to which they were born. No law at any time ever prevented or does now prevent a change of name without fraudulent intent, as is shown by the authorities above cited. The second reason assigned by the Board of Bar Examiners for declining to permit applicant to take the bar examination was his former connection with subversive organizations. As pointed out in the majority opinion, applicant, according to his own declaration, joined the Young Communist League in his senior year at high school. Whether that connection ended upon his graduation at the end of the school year does not appear. He joined the Communist party in 1934 and continued to be a member of that party as it then existed in this country until 1937 when he left the party. After 1937, at some date not stated, applicant joined and remained a member until 1940, when, according to his own declaration, he found the protestations of the leaders of the party as to their interest in man as an individual were false. He decided, so he declared, that the interest of the leaders was in their own welfare and so he left. This is his declaration. There *622 is no other evidence in the record except that supplied, as to membership in the Communist party, by applicant. The opinion of the majority points out that the Communist party was regarded in a far different manner during the time applicant was a member of it than at the present time. Applicant called the attention of the Board of Bar Examiners to the fact that in the year 1948, and years prior thereto, there was a national Communist ticket. Evidence of membership in the Communist party at a time fourteen years and more before the application to take the bar examination and with additional evidence that within that fourteen year period applicant took a solemn oath in the armed service of the United States of America to uphold and defend the Constitution and laws of this country and spent more than three years of such service as entitled him to an honorable discharge from the armed ranks, is not sufficient, in my opinion, to show want of good moral character of the applicant; and this is particularly true when it is shown that during the five years immediately preceding the date of application the applicant was of good moral character, at two educational institutions he attended during that time, and in the communities where he lived, three years having been spent at the law school at the University of this state. If the evidence in this case leaves any lingering suspicion that applicant may still in his beliefs cling to Communist theories, I think that the least that could be done about the matter of his eligibility to take the bar examination would be to bring him, with his legal representative and members of the Board of Bar Examiners, before the court for such representations as might be made as to the present activities of the applicant as to subversive matters. The majority makes much of the writing of a letter by applicant to his wife in 1944 after applicant had been in the armed services of this country for approximately a year and while he was on his way to the South Seas to fight and die, if necessary, for his country and for those of us who were unable to fight for ourselves. In that letter written to his wife applicant spoke with high praise of the Fair Employment Practices Commission and charged that white supremacy is a tool of southern Bourbonism to continue in power at the expense of the south itself and the nation as a whole and said: Later in the same letter applicant wrote that all the above "anti's" are: This letter speaks only of mental attitudes and beliefs. It is not difficult for me to understand how a young man, recently married, might display an ambitious desire to appear as a great philosopher to his recently wedded sweetheart from whom he must now be separated for a time. Though I cannot subscribe to the philosophy expounded by the writer as to some of his declarations, I think he might have been speaking of matters as he understood them to be at the time. Both Republicans and Democrats at that time were naturally opposed to the Communist party, but all recognized that it was the legally qualified exponent of its beliefs to the electorate of the United States. I do not think this letter was inadvertently offered in evidence by applicant's attorney. It is unfortunate that death has removed the attorney for applicant and he cannot now tell us why the letter was offered in evidence; but I think it was offered for the same reason applicant so freely told the members of the Board of Bar Examiners of his life's activities from the time he began working at nine years of age until he completed his educative efforts which brought him to the point of readiness to take the bar examination. I think applicant was denied the privilege of taking the bar examination on the suspicion that he still has beliefs of Communism *623 as it is now known to exist rather than as known to exist at the time applicant was a member of the Communist party. When applicant left the Communist party he used language quite like that used by Mr. Justice Jackson at one place in his opinion in American Communications Association v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 70 S. Ct. 674, 702, 94 L. Ed. 925. The opinion just referred to concurs in part with the majority opinion and dissents in part. The majority opinion points out certain declarations of Mr. Justice Jackson with all of which I fully agree; but in that opinion the writer was speaking as of May 8, 1950, the date of the decision, and not as of 1944. The opinion of the majority quotes from the opinion of Mr. Justice Jackson in American Communications Association v. Douds, supra, a declaration made by Mr. Justice Jackson as to what the Communist party actually is and the principles for which it stands. The case before the court and on which Mr. Justice Jackson wrote was one brought to test the constitutionality of the National Labor Relations Act as amended in 1947, 29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq. The act provided that the board would not investigate any question affecting commerce concerning representations of employees raised by a labor organization and that no such petition would be entertained unless there be on file with the board an affidavit executed in the time stated, by the officers of such an organization that the officer is not a member of the Communist party or affiliated with such party and, Having considered the Communist party and the propriety of the requirement as to membership in the Communist party, Mr. Justice Jackson wrote: Turning to the requirement of the oath as to a belief of the officers of the union Mr. Justice Jackson wrote boldly of his belief in fundamental constitutional principles. Among other things: The next quotation we take from this opinion of Mr. Justice Jackson upon which the majority placed considerable reliance expresses in very splendid language, very clearly, the idea of which applicant in this case had formed as he stated it and which he said was his reason for leaving the Communist party. The applicant said he came to the realization that the beautiful words declared by the leaders of the Communist party showed a lack of interest in the individual and a desire for power on the part of the leaders and the leadership *624 did not care what happened to the other people. Having so concluded he said that he finally and definitely left the Communist party. Mr. Justice Jackson states: It strikes me that applicant in this case at the time he left the Communist party was thinking along the same straight lines, and that his rebirth to the principles of democracy is no more strange than his passing from disbelief in God to faithful adherence to the religion of his birth. In the opinion of the majority in American Communications Association v. Douds, supra, Mr. Chief Justice Vinson wrote: The few of whom the court there spoke were officials of labor unions and they were the only members of labor unions as to whom an oath as to affiliations or beliefs was required. The full opinion as written by Mr. Chief Justice Vinson was concurred in by three members of the court. Mr. Justice Frankfurter concurred in all portions of the opinion except that numbered 7 to which he dissented. This is not important to consider in our case. Mr. Justice Black begins his dissenting opinion in American Communications Association v. Douds: Again Mr. Justice Black said: The quotations are taken from both Mr. Justice Jackson and Mr. Justice Black because I understand the majority of this court to rely solely on the proposition that at one time in his life, at least fourteen years before applying for admission to the bar, applicant was a member of the Communist party. No evidence appears in the record that in the year 1954 applicant was or had been for a period of fourteen years a member of the Communist party. In the record of the hearing held at Albuquerque this question was asked of applicant with the answer that follows: The oath referred to in the question is the oath required of an attorney being admitted to the bar. We quote from that record again: In Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, 71 S. Ct. 857, 863, 95 L. Ed. 1137, the United States Supreme Court in an opinion by Mr. Chief Justice Vinson, discussing the Smith Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2385, said: Mr. Justice Frankfurter in the Dennis case, supra, in a concurring opinion, wrote: There is an appendix to the opinion of Mr. Justice Frankfurter pointing to opinions holding that speech cannot be restricted constitutionally unless there would result from it an imminent close at hand substantive evil. The cases cited and quoted from illustrate the view taken by the highest court of the land as to any effort to control the thought processes of any individual. A mere belief in some proposition which is not orthodox when viewed from the standpoint of most people is not sufficient to condemn one as of bad moral character. The quotation taken from the majority opinion in American Communications Association v. Douds, supra, shows clearly that it is not membership alone in a party which was condemned. The oath required by the statute was of only a few individuals in that party who were in a position of leadership and whose authority and position might enable them to lead the masses of adherents to the beliefs and doctrines of that party to forcible action against the government. In the recent case entitled "In the Matter of Application of Ben G. Levy for Admission to Practice In the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas" the application was first considered by three District Judges. The matter involved the good moral character of applicant and nothing else. Applicant was a member of the bar of the State of Texas. The charge upon his character was based on the fact that he had been associated with an attorney practicing in the courts of Texas who was generally reputed to be a member of the Communist party. Applicant was denied admission to the District Court and thereupon took an appeal to the Court of Appeals where the judgment of the lower court was affirmed. 5 Cir., 214 F.2d 331. *627 Next the matter was taken to the Supreme Court of the United States where the following opinion was rendered: A very recent case involving moral character of an applicant for admission to the bar of the state of Florida is, Coleman v. Watts, filed May 11, 1955, rehearing denied June 3, 1955, 81 So. 2d 650, 651. In that case it is shown that applicant is an attorney duly admitted to practice in the courts of Ohio. In October 1953 applicant filed an application for permission to take the bar examination. In further stating the facts the Supreme Court of Florida said: The petitioner was the only witness; all derogatory allusions or derogatory accusations were flatly denied by him. Again we quote from the opinion: After being so advised by the Board the petitioner took the matter to the Supreme Court by certiorari to secure review of the ruling of the Board. Again we quote from the opinion: The court considered the cases found in the annotations to 28 A.L.R. 1140 and 72 A.L.R. 929 and discussed cases from Oregon, California, Wisconsin, Montana, Georgia, West Virginia, New York, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Indiana, and North Carolina. We now *628 quote the principles relied on in that case for quashing the ruling of the Board of Bar Examiners and directing that a hearing be afforded applicant in conformity with the principles stated in the opinion. I feel confident that the record before us does not show conclusively or even persuasively that the proceedings of the Board of Bar Examiners met the tests, stated in the quotation, and which are approved by the cases cited in the opinion. Applicant in our case was denied the privilege of taking the bar examination at the time of his appearance before the Board sitting for that purpose, as he had been advised previously that he might take the examination at that time. The board had before it certain information undisclosed to applicant which led the Board to hold an interview with him and to make certain inquiries of him of which no record was made except a record of a motion carried unanimously by the Board to the effect that applicant be denied the privilege of taking the bar examination because of subversive activities, aliases and arrests. He was not then advised, as I understand, of any reason for the questions which were asked him and he was not told the substance, even, of anything contained in the "Confidential File". At the hearing held in Albuquerque the applicant by his attorney asked for information as to the contents of the "Confidential File" held by the Board. He was informed that he could not have that and the hearing proceeded so far as anything against the applicant is concerned upon his statements only. There is a statement made by the Bar Examiners which is before the court that the Board did not rely upon the confidential information in reaching its decision but based the decision upon the statements by the applicant. As said above the applicant was denied the privilege of taking the examination when he appeared for that purpose. The result of the hearing at Albuquerque was the affirmation of its previous action in refusing to permit the applicant to take the examination. In this court applicant has complained of the failure to allow him to know about the reports in the "Confidential File". There is one other reliance for its action by the Board in its denial to the applicant of the privilege of taking the bar examination and that is the arrests of the applicant. It is true applicant was arrested several times, but he was never tried or convicted for anything. He has no criminal record and it has been many years since he was last arrested. If one were on trial for a criminal action mere arrests without convictions would not be shown for any purpose. For impeachment a defendant may be asked if he ever has been convicted of a misdemeanor or a felony. The details of the proceedings leading to a conviction are not admissible as evidence. It seems to be a fact that applicant disclosed the fact of his arrests in explaining the use of an alias at different times. Since the record does not show any *629 evidence of a fraudulent purpose in the use of an alias, bad moral character can not be established thereby. Just as a consideration of aliases is wrong in the absence of a showing of fraudulent intent, so is the consideration of arrests many years ago when there were no charges filed in some instances and no convictions ever. The good moral character of an individual may be attacked if put in issue by proof of his general reputation in the community for any damaging trait. It is not to be established by specific instances of what may be, or may be thought to be, wrongful acts. Proof of a general reputation of bad character at a remote time is not admissible. There is nothing in the record to show want of good moral character since January 1943. There is little if anything in the record other than applicant's beliefs, to show bad moral character at any time. There is only one act of applicant's life which suggests criminal conduct and that was when he was soliciting others to go to Spain with him and to there enter the Loyalist Army of that country. Applicant said he did not know the statute was in existence at the time he was asking others to go with him to Spain to enlist. It is not surprising that he did not know of the statute. There are many of us all over this country to whose attention that statute had not been called until necessity for its consideration arose. I have referred above to the "Confidential File". It is pointed out in the majority opinion in this case that I am the only member of the court who has read the "Confidential File". In this connection I feel justified in saying that by assignment this case first came to me for writing an opinion. On beginning to study the case I undertook to read and did read every paper in the files, including the "Confidential File". I not only read the instruments once, I have read all of them, including the "Confidential File", several times. The result of my studies at that time led me to prepare a memorandum suggesting that this court call before it the applicant with his attorney and the members of the Board of Bar Examiners for further consideration of the matter. The other members of this court did not agree with me but concurred in the opinion to which I now dissent. I think applicant was entitled to know at least the substance of any derogatory information given to the Board of Bar Examiners in the "Confidential File". I think every member of this court owes it to the applicant, on review here of the action of the Board of Bar Examiners, to know the contents of the "Confidential File". I do not believe that the applicant has been accorded the rights of freedom guaranteed him by the Federal Constitution or by the State Constitution or that he has had due process, by the proceedings had. That which I have said in this opinion is in no way a criticism of any member of the Board of Bar Examiners or of that Board. All men make mistakes. I know the members of this Board individually and am sure that no member of the Board would consciously or intentionally do any applicant a wrong. I appreciate also the sacrifices of time and effort which the examiners must make in order to hold the examinations and pass upon the eligibility of applicants for admission. In this case, however, I think an error has been made and that it should be corrected by an order of this court directing the Board of Bar Examiners to permit applicant to take the bar examination. For the reasons above stated, I dissent. Petitioner in his motion for rehearing is chiefly dissatisfied with the type of hearing he was given in this court, asserting the court should have ordered a personal hearing before it and requesting now that such hearing be given. As stated in our opinion, a request for personal hearing was made by petitioner, but this request was withdrawn as being premature by letter of May 21, 1954. No further request for hearing was made and the case was presented to us, briefed and orally argued, all with reference to the record of hearing before the Board of Bar Examiners held July 16, 1954. The question presented to us was whether applicant had established his good *630 moral character so as to entitle him to take the examination for membership in the bar in this state. Petitioner was given precisely the hearing before this court which he sought. Petitioner is also dissatisfied because we did not rule whether former membership in the Communist Party alone establishes a lack or absence of good moral character. The answer to this is the question was not and is not now before us. We stated in our opinion and we reiterate here: This conduct of petitioner, together with his other former actions in the use of aliases and record of arrests, and his present attitude toward those matters, were the considerations upon which application was denied. In connection with the matter of the arrest in Detroit, Michigan, for violation of the Neutrality Act we take this opportunity to dispel some doubt which may have arisen about the events leading thereto and the appropriateness of criminal prosecution under c. 321, § 10, March 4, 1909, 35 Stat. 1089 (substantially the same as the present § 959(a), Title 18 U.S.C.A.) Said § 10 provides: Mr. Justice Kiker in his dissent filed herein has asserted that petitioner's activities were not such that he could have been convicted under the statute. Either Mr. Justice Kiker has construed the statute in a manner at odds with the authorities (Gayon v. McCarthy, 1920, 252 U.S. 171, 40 S. Ct. 244, 64 L. Ed. 513; United States v. Blair-Murdock Co., D.C.Cal. 1915, 228 F. 75, reversed on other grounds, 9 Cir., 1917, 241 F. 217, certiorari denied, 1917, 244 U.S. 655, 37 S. Ct. 742, 61 L. Ed. 1374, which interpret the words "hire or retain" as meaning "engage" in the clause reading, "Whoever * * * hires or retains another person to enlist or enter himself," and the word "himself" in this connection refers to its antecedent "another person"); or he has ignored the following portions of letters from petitioner to his wife, introduced in evidence as exhibits. From the letter of May 9, 1944, we read: In a letter written May 13, 1944, petitioner described a friendship he had developed with a man named Pete Kowal in Detroit, and stated: Petitioner is also distressed over the fact the Board of Bar Examiners had access to certain confidential information already noted in our opinion and the fact the content of the file was not made known to him. As stated in our opinion, its author and the justices concurring therein at no time examined the content of this file. The sworn response of the Board of Bar Examiners to the original petition herein declared its recommendation was not based upon confidential information but upon facts disclosed by petitioner himself. Petitioner is now merely seeking to read some prejudice to himself into the proceedings where there is none in fact. No answer can now be made to petitioner's request he be advised as to whether he will be permitted to take the bar examination at some future date. The answer to such a request will depend upon the showing then made and how it may be viewed by the Court. Other matters argued upon the motion for rehearing are found to be without merit. The motion for rehearing is hereby denied. It is so ordered. COMPTON, C.J., and LUJAN and SADLER, JJ., concur. KIKER, Justice (dissenting). The majority opinion, as I read it, permanently disqualifies the applicant from taking the bar examination. The language which I so interpret is quoted in the opinion on the Motion for Rehearing and is as follows: If now, after fifteen years of unobjectionable conduct, three years of which were spent as a soldier in the service of the United States of America overseas, the applicant is a man of questionable character, then for him there can be no hope. If a man who became a member of a junior affiliate of the Communist party at the age of eighteen and later moved into the Communist party until he was twenty-six years of age, when he permanently separated from that party, is now of questionable character, even though during all of the years just mentioned the Communist party was recognized as much within the law as was the Republican party or the Democratic party, then it must be true that the individual will never be able to establish a *632 character among his fellows which could justify his association with respectable people or his admission to any of the learned professions. It is difficult for me to understand how the majority can seriously argue that the use of aliases, without intent to do harm to any individual or group of individuals, could so besmirch a man's character that he will be forever unfit for association with the respectable part of any community. It is, moreover, difficult for me to appreciate how the majority arrives at its conclusion that any number of arrests without a conviction of any offense whatever can forever condemn a man as one of questionable character. In the discussion in the majority opinion of the arrest of the applicant at Detroit, Michigan, in 1940 for violation of the Neutrality Act, my name is used again, and it is suggested that I have entirely overlooked pertinent authorities or that I have failed to read certain letters written by the applicant in the year 1944 when he had taken the oath required of all soldiers and was enlisted in the service of our country. These letters do no more than expose to applicant's wife, five years after he had severed all connection with the then lawful Communist party, some of his activities in that party. In the majority opinion two cases are cited as instances of authorities which I may have overlooked in expressing my dissent to the original opinion of the majority in this case. The first of these cases is Gayon v. McCarthy, 1920, 252 U.S. 171, 40 S. Ct. 244, 245, 64 L. Ed. 513. In that case the appellant, Gayon, was indicted in the Southern District of Texas for conspiring with one Naranjo of San Antonio, Texas, and of one Mendoza of Laredo, Texas, to hire and retain Foster Averitt, a citizen of the United States, to go to Mexico, there to enlist in the military forces organized in the interest of Felix Diaz then in revolt against the government of Mexico, with which the United States was at peace, in violation of what is called the Neutrality Act. Gayon was arrested in New York and was held by a commissioner, subject to order of the District Court for his removal to Texas. Next, by petition for writs of habeas corpus and certiorari the case was removed to the District Court for the Southern District of New York; and there the Court discharged the writ of habeas corpus and entered an order and warrant issued for the removal of the appellant to Texas. The appeal was taken to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court said: The Court examined the evidence. That before the commissioner was merely the indictment against the defendants and the admission by Gayon that he was the person named therein. The Court held that this established a prima facie case. Thereupon, the testimony of the accused and of one Del Villar was offered by appellant and that of Averitt by the government. This evidence showed that Del Villar, a political exile from Mexico, had maintained offices in New York, from which he had conducted a systematic propaganda in the interest of Felix Diaz and against the Mexican government; that Gayon was a Mexican citizen and throughout several administrations prior to that of Carranza had served as consul for the Mexican government at several places within and without the United States, one of these being at Roma, Texas. For about two years Gayon had been in the service and pay of Del Villar and General Aurelio Blanquet, the latter being in Mexico with the forces of Diaz. Naranjo was editor and publisher of "Revista Mexicana", a newspaper at San Antonio, Texas, the paper being opposed to the established Mexican government and favorable to Diaz and his interests. *633 There was much correspondence between Gayon from New York to Naranjo at San Antonio. The correspondence disclosed that Gayon, although in New York was in close association with Naranjo and that the two were engaged actively in promoting opposition to the established Mexican government. In January, 1919 Foster Averitt, an American citizen living in Texas, called at the office of Gayon. Averitt had recently resigned from the United States Naval Academy and was without employment. His purpose in calling on Gayon was to secure, if possible, a position in Mexico or Central America as an engineer. Among other things, he expressed his desire to see Generals Diaz and Blanquet personally. He asked for letters of introduction to these men. Gayon refused until he could confer with Del Villar. Averitt called again and discussed with Gayon conditions in Mexico near the border and the means of his going to Mexico and later received from Gayon two letters, one addressed to each of the generals above named. Gayon asked General Blanquet to supply Averitt with necessary information to enable him to make his trip into Mexico. He also asked that Averitt be introduced to General Diaz. In the letter he also requested the general to write as often as possible to enable "us to continue our campaign of propaganda". Having received these letters, Averitt went immediately to San Antonio where he presented the letter to Naranjo who gave him a letter to General Mendoza at Laredo. This letter was presented to Mendoza and through him arrangements were made for Averitt's crossing into Mexico with two or three others, but they were arrested by customs guards and the proceedings followed. In the interviews had in New York there was suggestion of payment of expenses and a commission for Averitt, but Gayon said that the furnishing of either would violate the neutrality laws of the United States, but that there would be no difficulty in his getting a commission from General Blanquet on his arrival in Mexico and also said "that he expected that he should be at least a colonel when he saw him again down there". Gayon also said to Averitt that it might be possible to have his expenses made up to him when he arrived in Mexico, and, as a matter of fact, he received $15 from General Mendoza at Laredo. As said above, the charge was conspiracy and the overt acts stated in the indictment were that Gayon delivered to Averitt in New York a letter addressed to Naranjo with instructions with respect to presenting it, and impliedly promised Averitt that upon his arrival in Mexico he would be given a commission in the army of General Blanquet and he also gave Averitt a letter to General Blanquet who was then in Mexico in command of revolutionary forces; that Averitt visited and held conferences with Naranjo who gave him a letter to Mendoza at Laredo in the southern district of Texas; and that Averitt called upon Mendoza and arrangements were made for him to enter Mexico with the intent to join the forces of Diaz under General Blanquet. The court says that it is evident that Gayon entered into the engagement by the promise that he would be given a commission in the forces of Diaz when he arrived there and that he would probably be reimbursed for his expenses. This case was not concerned with the guilt of Gayon. The question was whether he should be removed to the southern district of Texas and the Court held that there was a case against him to be tried in the southern district of Texas. Instead of undertaking to quote a few words from the opinion out of the context for the purpose of explaining the meaning of the words "hire" or "retain", I quote from the opinion following: The second of the cases cited in the majority opinion is Blair v. United States, 9 *634 Cir., 241 F. 217, certiorari denied 244 U.S. 655, 37 S. Ct. 742, 61 L. Ed. 1347. In this case, plaintiffs in error to the Circuit Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, were charged by indictments in the District Court with conspiracy to violate the Neutrality Act. The case was presented upon an agreed statement of facts and the trial court literally instructed the jury to return a verdict of guilty against the defendants. The Circuit Court reversed the judgment of the lower court and remanded the case for a new trial. From the opinion I quote: There is certainly nothing in either of the cases which causes me to change my opinion as to the possibility of a conviction of the applicant in the case now before this Court if he had been tried following his arrest at Detroit. I think the prosecuting attorneys, including, as the record in this case shows, the Attorney General of the United States, were aware of the situation and of the evidence which could be adduced. After about ten days following the arrest, applicant was released and, as shown by the record, the case was never thereafter called to trial and, as pointed out in the majority opinion, was dismissed. After diligent search, I have been unable to find anything which convinces me that the applicant, Mr. Schware, could have been convicted if there had been a trial following his arrest. The record before us does not show that anything was paid by the applicant to anybody else or that the applicant made any promise of anything to any other person by way of compensation or reward to be paid in the future. Somebody advanced some money to the four men who wanted to go overseas while they were in New York, but that certainly was not Schware. When it was found that the four men could not stow away and reach Spain, and that only three could go, the one who must return home was selected by tossing coins and the applicant was the one who must return home. Somebody gave them the money to pay for his transportation and he returned. The record shows nothing in the indictment as to its contents. The record names no individual who was hired or retained or engaged, or whom the applicant sought to hire or retain or engage. It is not shown by the record before us that applicant ever succeeded in causing anybody to enlist or enter himself in the United States, in the service of a foreign country. Evidently, the four who reached New York were acting in concert, one as anxious to get over to Spain as the other. I have previously read the letters set out in the latest majority opinion and find *635 nothing to change my mind as to this case. Both letters, set out in part in the latest majority opinion, were written in 1944, at a time when the applicant was a soldier in the service of his country. Each of these letters speaks of that which occurred in or prior to the year 1940. In the majority opinion it is again asserted that neither the author nor any of the justices concurring have at any time examined the file of what is called "Confidential Information." It is also again declared that the Board of Bar Examiners has stated that the recommendation to the court was not based on confidential information, but upon facts disclosed by petitioner himself. In the majority opinion this is found with reference to the confidential information: "Petitioner is now merely seeking to read some prejudice to himself into the proceedings where there is none in fact." It must be assumed, I think, that the Board of Bar Examiners, having notified the applicant that he could take the examination on a certain day, undertook for some reason upon his appearance on that date for the purpose of examination, to call him before the Board and interrogate him. Just what the interrogation was about at that time and to what extent it went and just what answers Mr. Schware made does not appear. What was that reason? Could it have been on account of the substance of that which is called "Confidential Information"? The application of Mr. Schware had been in the hands of the Clerk of the Board for a considerable length of time. There must have been some reason for Mr. Schware's interrogation at that time and his being denied the right to then take the examination. As I understand this situation, applicant is now denied the right to take the bar examination because of the hearing in Albuquerque. That matter has been sufficiently discussed, I think. I am now strengthened in my belief that it is not only the right but the duty of the members of this court to know everything, including the "Confidential Information" placed before the Board of Bar Examiners. I quote from the majority opinion overruling applicant's motion for rehearing: To me this statement is indeed strange. Bearing in mind that since 1940 the applicant has lived a life with which no fault has been found and as far as the record shows, no fault can be found; remembering also that during this fifteen year period applicant has served a period of three years in the U.S. Army, being there required if need be to lay down his life for those of us who are either too old or too infirm to go into the armed services in defense of our country and that he so served that he received an honorable discharge; and remembering that thereafter he proceeded from his high school accomplishments to acquire such education as qualified him to take the Bar Examination in our state except for a character showing, I inquire if fifteen years of blameless life is not long enough to establish his good character, how long will it take? Remembering the applicant is now forty-one years of age and desires to enter, at that late time, upon the practice of law, if another fifteen years of life with no wrong doing shall pass, will applicant then be of such character as to enable him to take the bar examination? Assuming the applicant will in the future live a blameless life there can be no record before the Board of Bar Examiners at any future date which will differ in any material respect from that placed before the Board and this court. It will always be a fact that in his youth and to 1940 applicant was affiliated with the then Communist party at a time when membership in that party cast no stigma on any individual. It will always be a fact that applicant, on several occasions, before his father's death made use of an alias. *636 It will always appear that the applicant, in his youth, was arrested several times but never tried or convicted for any offense. Under the majority holding, there can be no change of circumstances justifying permission to applicant to take the bar examination at any time in the future if he continues to live a life without misconduct. The view taken of the present situation by the majority should lead to answering the applicant's question as to whether he will ever be allowed to take the Bar Examination plainly and positively No. No other logical result can ever follow the order of the majority than the refusal of an examination to the applicant any and every time he may apply. Should Mr. Schware apply to take the bar examination in any other state or states he would have to disclose this fact. I deeply regret that the Communist party was ever organized in the United States of America, but I would not condemn and leave helpless those who forsook the error of their ways and have for many years lived the kind of life lived by other people who are considered worthy citizens. For the reasons expressed, I dissent.