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 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.

In short, the whole article relates to a particular duty of 100 sols,
laid by some antecedent law of France on the vessels of foreign nations,
relinquished as to the most favored, and consequently to us. It is not a
new and additional stipulation, then, but a declared application of the
stipulations comprised in the preceding articles to a particular case by
way of greater caution.

The doctrine laid down generally in the third and fourth articles,
and exemplified specially in the fifth, amounts to this: "The vessels
of the most favored nations coming from foreign ports are exempted from
the duty of 100 sols; therefore you are exempted from it by the third
and fourth articles. The vessels of the most favored nations coming
coastwise pay that duty; therefore you are to pay it by the third and
fourth articles. We shall not think it unfriendly in you to lay a
like duty on coasters, because it will be no more than we have done
ourselves. You are free also to lay that or any other duty on vessels
coming from foreign ports, provided they apply to all other nations,
even the most favored. We are free to do the same under the same
restriction. Our exempting you from a duty which the most favored
nations do not pay does not exempt you from one which they do pay."

In this view, it is evident that the fifth article neither enlarges
nor abridges the stipulations of the third and fourth. The effect of
the treaty would have been precisely the same had it been omitted
altogether; consequently it may be truly said that the reservation by
the United States in this article is completely useless. And it may be
added with equal truth that the