FRENCH MANDATE IN SYRIA IS NOT POPULAR DECLARES EARLE AT RADCLIFFE CONFERENCE

"France is having trouble with the administration of her mandatory in Syria solely because the Syrians do not want the French in their country," declared Professor Edward Mead Earle, head of the Department of History at Barnard College, in his address before the second meeting of the conference of the Massachusetts League of Women Voters' School of Politics, on Foreign affairs held in Agassiz House yesterday.

Professor Earle, who was formerly Professor of History at Columbia University, is one of the youngest authoritative students in this country of the Near East. He has spent several months during the last two years in the Asia Minor countries and is thoroughly acquainted with the situation.

"The results of a recent plebiscite taken after the Damascus bombardment during which the French army drove out the Syrian government," continued Professor Earle, "showed that 85 percent of the people wished an independent government. Their second choice was for a United States mandate and the third choice was for the British. Almost to a man the population opposed the French mandate. The League, of course, having once established the mandate has no power to change it. The only remedy is the voluntary withdrawal of the nation or its forceful expulsion by the country occupied.

French Interest is Cultural

"The French interest in Syria is not merely a crass, commercialistic one but rather the result of a long existing and sentimental tradition. Now that the French are in Syria they can find hundreds of reasons for not leaving. The saying is often heard nowadays, 'we can not scuttle' not only by the French but by the Americans and British as well. The French attachment to Syria is largely a cultural one which extends back beyond Napoleon's empire. French is the cultural language of Syria, the greatest universities and schools are French, and there is the additional religious interest which the French Roman Catholics have in their many Syrian churches and schools which holds France in a country where she is obviously not wanted.

"France has been in Syria since 1919, partly by right of treaty and partly by right of conquest. The conquest element was the less important of the two. The French have never kept a very large army in the Asia Minor country and most of that army was composed of natives. The conquest was involved in the bombardment of Damascus. The commander of the French army issued an ultimatum to the Syrian government which was answered and given to the French representative in Damascus, who delayed it until the time had expired and the army marched on the city.

Finally Establishes Civil Law

"Since this act, there have been six armed Syrian insurrections. Only one of these received any mention in the newspapers of this country. This notice was confined to a small piece in a New York paper saying that American property was endangered and that United States destroyers had sailed to protect it. Three successive French military governors have been sent to Syria, each one worse than his predecessor. Recently the home government realizing its mistake established a civil government.

"France," went on Professor Earle, "is unable to take Syria seriously. She is less able now than at any time in her modern history to handle the situation. French hands are full of her own problems, her finance, and her Riffian troubles which continue to be a living disturbance."

League Should Send Commission

Professor Earle in closing proposed two remedies for the present situation. The first is that the League send a Commission of Investigation to Syria to find out the complete details of the Damascus bombardment. Secondly, that a League Commissioner be placed in every mandate to see that the spirit as well as the letter of mandate be observed.

In the first speech of the afternoon session, Professor Charles Hodges of New York University spoke on the "Significance of Locarno."

"The European stabilization crystallizing from the treaties of Locarno," Professor Hodges maintained, "guarantees American prosperity for a generation. These pacts might well be looked upon by the American people as a European insurance policy underwriting the prosperity of the United States: It is the best international promise that the war debts will be liquidated we have, almost as important as the debt settlements themselves to us, and the agreements reached by the seven nations of Europe at Locarno put the political relations of our best customers upon a friendly basis which has not existed since 1914.

Is Signal for New Start

"The pacts of Locarno constitute the close of the era of the great war. They demobilize the hates and suspicions of the war itself, the peace of Versailles, and the unhappy post-war days mistakenly called the reconstruction period.

"For the first time since 1914 Europe faces the future turns its back upon the tragic accumulation of war antagonisms and ambitions. Once again, European unity as a family of nations is promised eastward to the frontiers of Bolshevik Russia. The disasterous fracture across Central Europe, breaking the Old World in two embattled camps of victor and vanquished, is ended.

"Real rehabilitation now can begin, replacing what have been nothing more than efforts at survival. The resumption of European teamwork in the field of politics points inevitably to the renewal of Old World cooperation in other fields.

"Any idea that a United Europe is a menace to America." Professor Hodges emphasized, "is grotesquely at variance with realities. If the Old World did not get together at Locarno, we would soon be confronted with debt settlements of no value: the collapsing of the most valuable markets open to American business; and the wiping out of the hundreds of millions of dollars our bankers have staked on European stability.