endship of France and Spain, the
latter of which we value much, and the former infinitely.

Mr. Carmichael is instructed to press this matter at Madrid; yet if the
Marquis and yourself think it could be better effected at Paris, with
the Count de Nunez, it is left to you to endeavor to draw it there.
Indeed, we believe it would be more likely to be settled there than at
Madrid or here. Observe always, that to accept the navigation of the
river without an entrepot would be perfectly useless, and that an
entrepot, if trammeled, would be a certain instrument for bringing on
war instead of preventing it.

I am, with great esteem, Dear Sir, your most obedient humble servant,

Th: Jefferson.

LETTER LVII.--TO MR. OTTO, March 29, 1791

TO MR. OTTO.

Philadelphia, March 29, 1791.

Sir,

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 o