Live Oak daily Democrat. (Live Oak, Fla.) 190?-190?, 1907-07-24
ms REDUCED IMPORTANCE.

saarPened to communicate our great
discovery to the public. but the Times
vas too swift for US and got there
first. Read the following from that
paper Of Monday. and see if ii isn't
the true and rational view to take Of
the so-called conspiracy" on the part
Of hessrs. knight and stOvall to have
Editor LEngle arrested and taken to
Msnatee county to answer an indict-
ment found against him there for
criminal libel. What answer can
there be to the argument Of the
Times that If they had succeeded in
the arrest Of L'Engle he would have
suffered no abuse or injury contrary
to law! The due and regular pro-
cess of law was invoked against him,
nothing more" That was certainly
MT a criminal act, and this being
true, how can L'Engle be guilty Of
criminal libel in charging them with
conspiring to do something that was
not contrary to law? This view OF
the case lets out all parties to the
transaction, restores them to good
standing and leaves as the net result
Of the great conspiracy" a magnif-
icent midsummer free ad for
L'Engle and his Sun during the dull
season, and some Incidental adyant-
ages Of the same character for Editor
Stoyalls great newspaper, the Tampa
Tribune. The Times article to which
we have referred is as follows:
"a brief and dispassionate review
Of the Knight-Stovall-L'Engle dis
turbance greatly reduces its import
ance. L'Engle made certain charges
against the other two. The law Of
criminal libel can only be invoked
when the act alleged constitutes a
crime. The first and most important
query Is whether the act or acts
charged against knight and Stovall
would be criminal in their nature had
they really been done. It seems
taking L'Engle's charges at their
broadest and deepest-that the worst
aspect Of the case is that these other
men merely undertook to have the
process Of law enforced at a time
convenient for their purposes. Had
they succeeded, L'Engle would have
suffered no abuse or injury contrary
to law. The due and regular process
of law was invoked against him,
nothing more. 1t would seem to be
clear that the acts charged as having
been attempted would not have con-
stituted a crime had they actually
been committed. Hence 1t Is difficult
to see how charging person with un-
dertaking a non-criminal act can
be a crime in itself even If false. Il
is possibly quite true that L'Engle
has placed the other gentlemen In the
case In a somewhat ridiculous atti-
tude, but it is more than doubtful If
occurrences Of this class come within
the purview of the criminal law. The
criminal law presumes that a man
prosecuted under 1t has charged an
J innocent party with the commission
of crime. When the act charged is
not a crime, it is hard to understand
how the making of the charges be-
come a crime. It may be an offense
all right, but not Of that grade or
character Of which the law takes
cognizance and the redress Of which
If worth while to be undertaken
must be pursued outside the law.
This then, must be discussion, con-
troversy, presentation of both sides
to the public which is the tribunal for
the decision of disputes of its class.
It is manifestly improper and unfair
for a man to invoke the Law for re-
dress in a case where 1t does not
rightfully apply. 1t looks as though
the whole business should be settled
by being allowed to die a natural
death. Criminal proceedings in this
class Of trouble have been abused
until they have lost a measure Of pub