article has been inserted on the part of the United States, from an
over caution to guard, _nommément_, by name, against a particular
aggrievance, which they thought could never be too well secured against:
and that has happened, which generally happens; doubts have been
produced by the too great number of words used to prevent doubt.

II. The court of France, however, understands this article as intended
to introduce something to which the preceding articles had not reached,
and not merely as an application of them to a particular case. Their
opinion seems to be founded on the general rule in the construction of
instruments, to leave no words merely useless, for which any rational
meaning can be found. They say, that the reservation by the United
States of a right to lay a duty equivalent to that of the one hundred
sols, reserved by France, would have been completely useless, if they
were left free by the preceding articles, to lay a tonnage to any
extent whatever; consequently, that the reservation of a part proves a
relinquishment of the residue.

If some meaning, and such a one, is to be given to the last member
of the article, some meaning, and a similar one, must be given to the
corresponding member. If the reservation by the United States of a right
to lay an equivalent duty, implies a relinquishment of their right to
lay any other, the reservation by France of a right to continue
the specified duty, to which it is an equivalent, must imply a
relinquishment of the right on her part, to lay or continue any other.
Equivalent reservations by both, must imply equivalent restrictions on
both. The exact reciprocity stipulated in the preceding articles, and
which pervades every part of the treaty, ensures a counter right to each
party for every right ceded to the other.