The note of December the 13th, which you did me the honor to address to me, on the acts of Congress of the 20th of July, 1789, and 1790, fixing the tonnage payable by foreign vessels arriving from a foreign port, without excepting those of France, has been submitted to the government of the United States.  They consider the conduct of his Most Christian Majesty, in making this the subject of fair discussion and explanation, as a new proof of his justice and friendship, and they have entered on the consideration with all the respect due to whatever comes from his Majesty or his ministers, and with all the dispositions to find grounds for an union of opinion, which a sincere attachment to your nation and a desire to meet their wishes on every occasion, could inspire.  But the fifth article of the treaty of amity and commerce is not seen here exactly in the point of view, in which your note places it.

The third and fourth articles subject the vessels of each nation to pay in the ports of the other, only such duties as are paid by the most favored nation; and give them reciprocally, all the privileges and exemptions in navigation and commerce, which are given by either to the most favored nations.  Had the contracting parties stopped here, they would have been free to raise or lower their tonnage, as they should find it expedient; only taking care to keep the other on the footing of the most favored nation.

The question then is, whether the fifth article, cited in the note, is any thing more than an application of the principle comprised in the third and fourth, to a particular object:  or whether it is an additional stipulation of something not so comprised.

I. That it is merely an application of a principle comprised in the preceding articles, is declared by the express words of the article, to wit, dans l’exemption ci-dessus est nommement compris, &c:  ’In the above exemption is particularly comprised the imposition of one hundred sols per ton, established in France on foreign vessels.’  Here then is at once an express declaration, that the exemption from the duty of one hundred sols is comprised in the third and fourth articles; that is to say, it was one of the exemptions enjoyed by the most favored nations, and, as such, extended to us by those articles.  If the exemption spoken of in this first member of the fifth article was comprised in the third and fourth articles, as is expressly declared, then the reservation by France out of that exemption, (which makes the second member of the same article) was also comprised:  that is to say, if the whole was comprised, the part was comprised.  And if this reservation of France in the second member, was comprised in the third and fourth articles, then the counter reservation by the United States (which constitutes the third and the last member of the same article) was also comprised.  Because it is but a corresponding portion of a similar whole, on our part, which had been comprised by the same terms with theirs.