In the same letter he endeavours to convey the opinion that the harsh and injurious strictures made to Mazzei were not intended for General Washington, and that this distinguished individual never applied them to himself. The evidence in support of this proposition is not derived from the person whose opinion Mr. Jefferson undertakes to state. The writer says,[75] "I do affirm that there never passed a word, written or verbal, directly or indirectly, between General Washington and myself on the subject of that letter." If his observations on this point are to be considered as reasoning rather than assertion, they may be freely examined. [Footnote 75: Vol. iv. p. 401.] At the head of the list of those composing the "Anglican, monarchical, aristocratical party," the letter places "the executive." "Against us are the executive, the judiciary, two out of three branches of the legislature, all the officers of government, all who want to be officers," &c. The letter speaks in the present tense, and the term "executive" can describe only the then actual President. Consequently, it designates General Washington as expressly as if he had been named. If this positive evidence could be strengthened by auxiliary proof, it is furnished by the same sentence. "All officers of government, all who want to be officers," are included in the enumeration of those composing the party opposed to "the main body of citizens who remained true to republican principles." By whom were these Anglican, monarchical, and aristocratical officers selected? By General Washington. To him alone were they indebted for their appointments. To whom did those "who wanted to be officers" look for the gratification of their wishes? To the same person. Would every individual in search of office enlist himself in a party so odious to "the main body of our citizens," and "the whole landed interest," if he did not think the road leading directly to that which he sought? As if willing to keep out of view what can not be explained away, Mr. Jefferson turns our attention to other passages supposed to be more equivocal. He insists[76] that the letter saying "that two out of the three branches of the legislature were against us, was an obvious exception of him; it being well known that the majorities in the two branches of the senate and representatives were the very instruments which carried, in opposition to the old and real republicans, the measures which were the subjects of condemnation in this letter." [Footnote 76: Vol. iv. p. 405.]