{"character_count": 1466, "word_count": 269, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9932000041007996], "ccnet_perplexity": [1616.800048828125], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
The Gazette defends Judge Eskridge from the charge of having been Delegate to the Baltimore Convention. The Gazette thinks that the fact that his name appears only in the annunciation of those taat met on the first day, and not afterwards in any of the proceedings, ought to have proven to us that he did not act us delegate. By no means There were a hundred or two delegates from Maryland, enly small number of whom vo- ted. There were Delegates from Michigan who did not vote, and we had no right or req son to suppose that the delegate from Arkan- sas was not as much delegate as any other who was there, His credentials were as good as any body's. We assure Judge Esk- ridge and his friends that we had nc intention of disturbing his C domestic repose." We have no cause ofenmity against him-and had we not met with his name among those of the Delegates to the Baltimore Convention, we would not have troubled him. If the Editor of the Gazette has known him fifteen years, we have not word to say against his charac- ter. There is, however, great similarity between the letter of Judge Eskridge and that of D,,, Fucker. Both of them happened to be in Baltimore, and expressed their opin- ions freely to many members of the Conven- tion. The Judge often stated that he thought large majority of the people of Ar kansas would support the nominees of the Conventions" Fhe was foolish enough to tell them that, he need not wonder at any thing which might befall him.