words: "1789, Oct. 1. By my bill on Willincks, Van Staphorsts & Hubbard for 2,800 florins, equal to 6,230 livres 18 sous." An inspection of the account, too, shows that whenever I received _cash_ for a bill, it is uniformly entered "by cash received of such an one, &c;" but where a bill was drawn to constitute an item of account only, the entry is "by my bill on, &c." Now to these very words "cash received of Grand," not in my original but interpolated by himself, he constantly appeals as proofs of an acknowledgment _under my own hand_ that _I received the cash_. In proof of this, I must request patience to read the following quotations from his denunciations as standing in the Federal Republican of May 24: Page 2, column 2, 1. 48 to 29 from the bottom, "he [Mr. J.] admits in his account rendered in 1790 and settled in 1792, that he had _received the_ '_cash_,' [placing the word _cash_ between inverted commas to have it marked particularly as a quotation] that he had _received the_ '_cash_' for the bill in question, and he does not directly deny it now. Will he, can he, in the _face of his own declaration in writing_ to the contrary, publicly say that he did not receive the money for this bill in Europe? This is _the point_ on which the whole matter rests, the _pivot_ on which the arguments turn. If he did receive the money in Europe, (no matter whether at Cowes or at Paris,) he certainly had no right to receive it a second time from the public treasury of the United States. This is admitted I believe on all sides. Now, _that he did receive the money in Europe_ on this bill, is proved by the _acknowledgment of the receiver himself_, who credits the amount in his account as settled at the treasury thus: "_cash received of Grand_ for bill on Willincks, Van Staphorsts, 2,876 gilders, 1,148 dollars." Col. 3, 1. 28 to 21 from bottom. There is a plain difference in the phraseology of the account, from which an extract is given by Mr. J. as above, and that _which he rendered to the Treasury_. In the former he gives the credit thus, "By my bills on Willincks," &c. In the latter he states, "By _cash received of Grand_ for bill on Willincks, &c." There is a difference, indeed, as he states it, but it is made solely by his own interpolation. Col. 3, 1. 8, from bottom. "That Mr. Jefferson should, in the very teeth of the facts of the evidence before us, and in his own breast, gravely say that he had paid the money for this bill, and that therefore it was but just to return him the amount of it, when he had, _by his own acknowledgment_, sent it to Grand & Co., and _received the money for it_, is, I confess, not only matter of utter astonishment but regret." I spare myself the qualifications which these paragraphs may merit, leaving them to be applied by every reader according to the feelings they may excite in his own breast.