This being thought Anglican, its course being such as to induce the writer to brand it with this odious epithet, ought it to excite surprise that an editor, the organ of the French government, made the strictures upon it which are quoted in the note?
Are not those strictures as applicable to the letter now avowed as to the interpolated sentence?
The remark that the "French government had testified its resentment by breaking off communication with an ungrateful and faithless ally until she shall return to a more just and benevolent conduct," was the assertion of a fact which had taken place, and the commentary discloses its object not less plainly than did the time at which this fact was announced to the American government and people.[74] "It will give rise in the United States," says the editor, "to discussions which may afford a triumph to the party of good republicans, the friends of France." [Footnote 74: It was announced by Mr.Adet in the crisis of the first contest for the Presidency between Mr.Adams and Mr.Jefferson.] The letter, without the aid of the interpolated sentence, could not fail to cherish this sentiment.

It states explicitly an unequivocal division and a decided hostility between those who administered the government, and the great body of land holders, who, in this country, are the people.

The first were Anglican and monarchical, the last were republican, and, in the language of the Moniteur, "the friends of France." What so certain to produce or continue the rupture of communication mentioned by the editor as the opinion that this statement was true?
If we could doubt, our doubts are removed by the declaration that it would produce "discussions in the United States which may afford a triumph to the party of good republicans, the friends of France;" and by the declaration of Mr.Adet.
The interpolated sentence then does not vary the import of the letter, nor change the impression it made in France, and must make on the mind of the reader.
Were it otherwise, Mr.Jefferson should have directed his reproaches towards himself for the countenance his silent acquiescence gave to the opinion that the whole letter was genuine--not towards the great body of his countrymen who yielded implicit faith to this imposing testimony.
Could such a letter from such a personage be entirely overlooked by the biographer of Washington?
Having assumed the task of delineating the character, and detailing the actions and opinions of the great soldier and statesman of America, an essential part of which was to be looked for in the difficulties and the opposition he encountered and overcame, could a transaction which contains such strong intrinsic evidence of those difficulties and that opposition be passed over in total silence?
These questions were revolved in his mind while engaged in this part of the work; and the result to which his judgment conducted him was a conviction that, though he might forbear to make those strictures on the letter which the relative situation of the writer and the individual so seriously criminated seemed to invite, his duty required him to notice it so far as it indicated the violence of party spirit at the time, the extreme to which it was carried, the dangers to which it led, and the difficulties which the wise and firm mind of Washington was doomed to encounter.
The remarks of the French editor were quoted because they have a strong tendency, especially when connected with subsequent events, to explain the motives by which the Directory was actuated in its aggressions on the United States, and to justify the policy of the Washington administration.

These remarks did not grow out of the interpolated sentence, nor were they confined to it.

They apply to the whole letter.