ghers, gangers, etc., who
are paid by the United States, for which articles, among many others
(light-house money excepted), duties are paid by us in the ports of
France under their specific names. That Government has hitherto thought
these duties consistent with the treaty, and consequently the same
duties under a general instead of specific names, with us, must be
equally consistent with it. It is not the name, but the thing, which is
essential. If we have renounced the right to lay any port duties, they
must be understood to have equally renounced that of either laying new
or continuing the old. If we ought to refund the port duties received
from their vessels since the date of the act of Congress, they should
refund the port duties they have received from our vessels since the
date of the treaty, for nothing short of this is the reciprocity of
the treaty.

If this construction be adopted, then each party has forever renounced
the right of laying any duties on the vessels of the other coming from
any foreign port, or more than 100 sols on those coming coastwise. Could
this relinquishment be confined to the two contracting parties alone,
the United States would be the gainers, for it is well known that a much
greater number of American than of French vessels are employed in the
commerce between the two countries; but the exemption once conceded by
the one nation to the other becomes immediately the property of all
others who are on the footing of the most favored nations. It is true
that those others would be obliged to yield the same compensation, that
is to say, to receive our vessels duty free. Whether we should gain or
lose in the exchange of the measure with them is not easy to say.

Another consequence of this construction will be that the vessels of the
most favored nations paying no duties will be on a better footing than
those of natives which pay a moderate duty; consequently either the duty
on these also must be given up or they will be supplanted by foreign
vessels in our own ports.

The resource, then, of duty on vessels for the purposes either of
revenue or regulation will be forever lost to both. It is hardly
conceivable that either party looking forward to all these consequences
would see their interest in them.

III. But if France persists in claiming this exemption, what is to
be done? The claim, indeed, is couched in mild and friendly terms;
but the idea leaks out that a refusal would authorize