STATEMENT OF HUGH G. GRANT, FORMER UNITED STATES MINISTER TO ALBANIA AND THAILAND, AUGUSTA, GA.

Mr. GRANT. My name is Hugh G. Grant. I am a native of Birmingham, Ala., and for several years a resident of Augusta, Ga.

My early education was in the public schools and Howard College, a Baptist institution in Birmingham. Subsequently I graduated at Harvard University with the A. B. degree, majoring in political science.

Later I attended the George Washington University where I received the A. M. degree in the school of government.

I have engaged in newspaper reporting, radio commentary and educational work, both State and Federal. I was a member of the faculty at Alabama Polytechnic Institute, Auburn, Ala., when Hugo L. Black, Senator-elect from Alabama, invited me to accompany him to Washington as his secretary and assistant.

While in Washington I prepared for the American diplomatic service at the George Washington University, served as political officer in the State Department and subsequently, as United States Minister to Albania and Thailand (Siam).

All of my service was under the late Secretary of State Cordell Hull. I am now officially retired but unofficially, I am devoting practically all of my time to speaking and writing as best I can in the effort to help protect and preserve the rights of the sovereign States pursuant to the Constitution of the United States.

Now if I may be a bit personal, I was one of a small group that organized the State Rights Council of Georgia, Inc., following, what I choose to call the infamous Supreme Court decision of May 17, 1954, declaring segregation in the public schools unconstitutional.

I was the first president of the council and I am now a member of the executive committee. I am also a member of the national policy committee of For America and the executive committee of the Federation for Constitutional Government.

Now since I am not a lawyer, and in view of the fact that I have pursued courses in government and political science and have taught political science and was a radio commentator and a newspaper reporter a good many years ago, I want to approach this subject today from a little bit different angle than the strictly legal position.

I might add, Mr. Chairman, that if I were a lawyer, there would be nothing left for me to say here today as a witness on the legal aspects of this subject, since my colleagues, Attorney General Eugene Cook and Charles Block, a prominent lawyer of Macon, Ga., I believe, have presented before this committee very able arguments going into the details of the legalistic aspect of this question.

I speak here today as an American citizen who is very profoundly disturbed over the situation confronting the American people, both at home and abroad. I am of the opinion that the American constitutional Republic, as established by those far-sighted Founding Fathers and which has resulted in the development of this great Nation of ours, is in grave danger of destruction.

The forces that could destroy this Republic are threatening, simultaneously, both from within and without. The so-called civil-rights bills which are now before this Senate committee and a House committee constitute a part of the internal threat, in my judgment.

On the international front-if I may digress for perhaps just a few minutes the recent flareup in the Middle East has brought into sharp focus the startling fact that the United States of America, leader of the so-called free world and dominant and principal financial supporter of the 80-member United Nations, today stands practically alone in the global cold war with Soviet Russia.

In the terrible event of world war III, it appears likely that the United States, with only an infinitesimal percent of the world population, would find itself carrying most of the war load and bearing the brunt of the armed conflict for the free world.

As pointed out recently in U. S. News and World Report, any warlike move in any one of 60 foreign countries commits this Nation to action whether we have taken any part in these moves.

This area includes all of North and South America, nearly all of Western Europe and all of the vast Pacific as well as the Atlantic area. We are definitely committed through "defense alliances" to 42 foreign countries. We could become involved in one or more "hot wars" in remote sections of the world at any moment.

In other words, 170 million Americans are committed to defend and help 60 nations with a combined population of 12 billion people, or about 61 percent of the world population. In my judgment, we are greater overextended militarily, far beyond the needs for our own adequate defense, and there is some very reliable and expert military support for this viewpoint.

This global situation in which we find ourselves is definitely linked with the alarming state of affairs here on the homefront, which includes this question that is being considered by this committee.

The national debt of some $275 billion as compared with about $1 billion in 1917, the year we entered World War I, "to make the world safe for democracy," as we thought, staggers the imagination.

The present debt is about $10 billion more than it was in Eisenhower's first year in office, June 1953.

Since the end of World War II in 1945 the United States has given away to foreign countries the enormous sum of $60 billion and the Santa Claus handouts continue at the rate of $4 to $5 billion a year, although the American people were told 10 years ago that the Marshall economic aid plan would mark the end of the giveaway program.

Nikolai Lenin, leader of the Russian Bolshevik Communist Revolution in 1917, said:

We will force the United States to spend itself to destruction.

Is it possible that the master minds in the Kremlin are today following the Lenin strategy in prosecuting the cold war with us?

Linked with this vast overseas giveaway of billions of dollars extracted from the harassed American taxpayers is a rapidly developing welfare state on the homefront. There is more and more planned economy under highly centralized Federal controls in Washington made possible by the collection of vast funds, through confiscatory taxes, inflationary borrowings, and unlimited deficit spending to subsidize powerful pressure groups.

There is also an organized conspiracy to break down our well-established immigration laws in order to bring in more foreigners, some of doubtful antecedents, for the "gravy train" and to increase the political strength of the minority groups which are agitating for this

civil-rights bill, already swarming in our big metropolitan cities like New York-all at the expense of our fundamental American traditions and concepts.

The net effect of all this is a chipping away of the individual liberties of the American people by Executive order, bureaucratic decrees, and judicial edicts emanating from Washington.

The whole program tends, at an ever-accelerating pace, toward totalitarianism, fascism, socialism, the police state, and communism. Last November 6, 1956, on the 38th anniversary of the Bolshevik revolution, the spokesman for the Soviet Government, Lagar Kaganovick, told a cheering selected audience of Government leaders in Moscow that:

This present century would see the triumph of communism whose ideas are spreading throughout the world

and the speaker added

No one can break the close ties linking the Soviet people with the broad masses and working classes of all countries of the world.

And undoubtedly this Soviet Government spokesman had his eyes cast in the direction of the United States of America.

There is no doubt in my mind that these so-called civil-rights or force bills, now pending before the Congress, have the active backing of the international Communists and that the design is to stir up tension and strife and violence and bloodshed in this country.

Only 3 weeks ago the American Communist Party, meeting in New York City, heaped praise on the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and boldly called on President Eisenhower by telegram to issue

a new Eisenhower doctrine for the enforcement of Supreme Court desegregation decisions.

That is the end of the quote from the telegram of the Communist Party meeting in New York, to President Eisenhower.

South Magazine, published in Birmingham, reported that

Attorney General Brownell, front man for the administration's so-called civilrights program and liberals of both parties in Congress winced at the Red manifesto and at Southern darts and jibes about the company in which they were traveling.

The Communist Party request to President Eisenhower was not devoid of logic, since Mr. Eisenhower, despite his forthright utterances in support of States rights during his first campaign for the Presidency in 1952-some of you remember those-has given continuous encouragement to the NAACP-by attending an NAACP meeting; by his appointment to the Supreme Court of Chief Justice Warren, who subsequently brought in the unanimous verdict of the Court for racemixing in the public schools of the Nation; by his-I am referring to Mr. Eisenhower-his sponsorship of speedy integration of the Washington City schools with a view to creating "a model for the rest of the country"-a plan which has created chaos in the Nation's Capitaland by his about-face on integration in the armed services.

When Eisenhower was a general he was against race mixing-he testified to that effect before the Senate Armed Services Committee back in 1948-but when the Presidential bug bit him he went all-out for it, completing the job ordered by President Truman by Executive order in 1948.

The Negro bloc vote and not the welfare of the men and in uniform was the motivation in both instances. This integr the Armed Forces is one of the most potent weapons in the the NAACP and its race mixing white allies who are pulling hard for this civil rights legislation during this session of Congress.

The Communist Negro drive in the United States began back in 1920, according to testimony of James W. Ford, Negro Communist leader, before the House Un-American Activities Committee in 1947. The Communist Party's Fourth National Convention-the one held in New York the other day was the seventh-stated that the party had penetrated the NAACP.

In 1928 many Negroes were sent to Russia for training in revolutionary tactics, according to Manning Johnson, reformed ex-Communist Negro leader, in the American Mercury, February 1955.

In 1948 Henry Lee Moon, public relations head of the NAACP, wrote a book entitled, "Balance of Power, the Negro Vote." I have a сору, here it is. It is a sort of Negro Mein Kampf, with many illuminating quotes. Here is a significant one:

The Communist Party sees in the Negro an important potential ally in the struggle for a revolutionary upheaval and redistribution of wealth and power. Accordingly, Communists have devoted more attention and energy among colored citizens than to any other non-Negro group seeking basic reform since the heyday of the Garrisonian Abolitionists.

In the infancy of CIO-PAC, Henry Lee Moon went to work as assistant to foreign-born Sidney Hillman who was an organizer and vice president of the CIO. Hillman as some of you may recall, played a most important part in the selection of Senator Harry Truman as the running mate of President Roosevelt in 1944.

After F. D. R. sent word to his lieutenants at Chicago to "clear it with Sidney," Truman was nominated for Vice President in lieu of James F. Byrnes. Author Moon was recently reported a few weeks ago to be in the office of Roy Wilkins, executive secretary of the NAACP, successor to the late Walter White, whom I used to see many years ago lobbying in the Halls of the Congress here in Washington.

It was Wilkins who, on February 19, was reported in the press as having told this Senate subcommittee that he could "not predict what mood might be engendered" among southern Negroes if they do not get "a minimum guaranty" of constitutional rights.

This statement of the executive secretary of the NAACP, Roy Wilkins, in my judgment, sounds very much like incitement to violence on the part of the southern Negroes, as well as a threat against the Congress.

If you don't pass this legislation, look out, there is going to be trouble from the Negroes of the South.

That was the directing head of the NAACP, Roy Wilkins, in his testimony before this subcommittee as I read it in the press a few days ago.

I do not believe the Wilkins statement reflects the true sentiments of the rank and file of southern Negroes whose relationships with the white people have been friendly throughout the years.

Recently I received copy of a Negro newspaper published in Mississippi which carried on its front page a commendatory article about a speech which I made before the law students at the University of

Georgia, in which I said the Negro needed to develop pride of race through segregation rather than attempting race mixing in an integrated society.

I am of the opinion that the great majority of real Negroes in the South are not seeking integration and would rather not have it.

I recall a conversation which I had several years ago with the late Dr. Robert R. Moton, who succeeded Booker T. Washington as president of Tuskegee Institute in Alabama. I was an official visitor at Tuskegee as a member of the Alabama State Department of Education.

Dr. Moton, the president of Tuskegee, was a big physically finelooking fullblooded African. We talked about the race question. Dr. Moton said he was "a Negro, not a colored person," that he was proud of the fact that he belonged to a distinct race of people and that his ambition was to make a contribution to his race.

He said he had no desire for social equality with white people and that he believed the system of segregation as practiced in the South was best for the Negro, since it enabled him to develop pride of race through cooperation and competition with members of his own race.

That is a great Negro leader speaking, many years ago it is true, and unfortunately he has passed on. He was the successor to Booker Washington, the head of this great Tuskegee institution.

Senator ERVIN. Mr. Grant, if I may interrupt you without detraining your train of thought, I would like to make an observation. One of the former Governors of North Carolina told me a short time ago of statements made to him by Dr. Shepherd who was president of one of our colleges for Negroes in North Carolina, the North Carolina College in Durham.

He said Dr. Shepherd told him that he believed that the Negro race would work out its destiny in North Carolina to the best advantage if the public school system remained segregated.

I did not have that conversation myself with Dr. Shepherd. In my judgment, Dr. Shepherd is entitled to rank among our foremost educators in North Carolina.

He did a wonderful job. He was for a long time president of this college in Durham which is now entitled in my judgment to rank among the best universities.

Mr. GRANT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I have not put this in my manuscript here, but let me add in this connection that I was so much impressed with what Dr. Moton said to me, which I have quoted here in substance, that months before the Supreme Court decision was handed down ordering the outlawing of segregation in the public schools, because of my very close association with Senator Hugo L. Black in Washington during his first term in the Senate, I sat down and wrote a letter to Justice Black.

This was several months before the Supreme Court decision.

I had a certain personal relationship with Judge Black. We had known each other in Birmingham as young men. I called him Hugo and he called me Hugh.

I wrote him a letter and quoted this conversation that I had had with Dr. Moton that I have just mentioned here. I said:

Since you and your associates are considering this momentous question of segregation, you are coming down with the decision before many months, I though you would be interested in knowing what one of the great Negro leaders in America thought about it