Great Bend – The glove factory has closed down for a few days owing to scarcity of help. S. Balier left Monday night for New York to secure help.

Forest Lake – W. B. Lincoln and wife, who recently went to Montrose to live, have come to the conclusion that the farm is the best place and have returned to their home here. We welcome them back.

Springville – Our neighboring township of Lathrop is alarmed over the cases of diphtheria already developed. The teacher at Lakeside school is very ill at her boarding place, the home of
Charles Rockwell, and two children and a pupil at Lakeside school are also ill with the disease.

South Gibson – Mrs. W. A. Chamberlin and Mrs. H. L. Abel, of Harford, spent the week end in Binghamton and Johnson City, and had the pleasure of going through the Endicott-Johnson shoe factory, seeing the multitude of workers at their machines, each doing their special part making 19,200 pairs of shoes daily, also at the box factory, where the boxes are made ready for the shoes and then shipped to all parts of the world.

Clifford – Work on the stoning of the road from this place to Carbondale has begun in earnest. The crusher is being used on the Carbondale end and the work will be pushed this way as fast as possible. The work of putting gravel on the road from the cemetery to the village will begin soon. This section of the highway was stoned some years ago, so the top dressing is all that is needed. ALSO During the year 1913, Henry D. Jones and James E. Jenkins, of Clifford township, brought suit against the school directors of said township, seeking to compel them to reopen and maintain a school which had formerly been closed and consolidated with another school. After a hearing in our local court, Judge Little sustained the action of the school directors. An appeal was taken to the Superior Court and that body has recently handed down an opinion affirming Judge Little’s decision in the case.

East Rush - Our creamery man, E. W. Estus, is soon to leave us, so it is reported. We sure hate to part with him for we feel that the community is losing a good citizen, the Creamery Co. a good butter maker and the church a staunch supporter. While some, doubtless, will be glad to see him go, the majority of the people feel that they are going to lose a good friend.

Montrose – The death of William Smith, an old colored resident of Montrose, occurred on Sunday morning, Oct. 10, 1915, after a long illness with tuberculosis. He was a son of the late Rev. William Smith, at one time pastor of Zion A. M. E. church, and two brothers are in the ministry, Rev. Charles Smith and Rev. George Smith, who hold charges in New York State. Mr. Smith was well known for his cheerful disposition and he was obliging to all. For many years he assisted as butcher in the South Main street meat market. He is survived by his wife and five adult children. The funeral was largely attended from Zion church on Wednesday afternoon.

Jackson – Miss J. M. Hovey, of Binghamton, will be at the Central Hotel, Oct. 20-21, with a complete new stock of millinery goods.

Fairdale – The Dewey Medicine Co. visited Fairdale last week and gave away several valuable presents, among them being a valuable silver ware set for the most popular married woman. Mrs. Grace Downer secured the prize.

Susquehanna – The Simon H. Barnes Memorial Hospital graduating exercises will be held in the L. A. C. Hall, Wednesday evening. The Misses Mildred Washburn, Mildred Stewart, Gertrude Lewis and Gwen Lewis will graduate. ALSO Fritsy Fon, Hon. C. F. Wright’s chauffeur, attended the races at Sheepshead Bay, Saturday.

Thompson – On account of the interest and large attendance at our high school, the directors invited Supt. Stearns to meet with them Oct. 4th, in regard to changing the school from a third class school to a second class. After considering the matter from all sides, it was the unanimous decision that it was the proper thing to do. The directors and faculty are working together to make Thompson Borough school one of the best second class high schools in the county. All pupils who wish to attend high school will make no mistake if they choose Thompson, as they will be under good influence and instruction. Board can be had at good homes at reasonable rates.

Lynn, Springville Twp. – Wanted in this place—a good barber and cobbler. The same can make a good living and would be appreciated by the whole community at large.

Great Bend – Galvin Newman and family, of Elyria, Ohio, are visiting his parents, Mr. and Mrs. William Newman. They made the trip in a new Maxwell car which had been bought in Elyria by Almon Newman, of this place.

Franklin Forks – J. C. Webster expects to move his house onto the cellar he has just finished this week. Mr. Lilly, of Montrose, will do the work.

N. Harford – Friends from Scranton, Binghamton, Harford village, Kingsley, Wilkesbarre and Kingston, have been recent guests at W. S Sophia’s to welcome Mr. and Mrs. Alexander, of Montana, but we all regret that the latter place is so far away. “We meet, but we must part,” and Mr. and Mrs. Alexander and their three fine little girls leave here sometime this week for their Western home. Friends will always be glad to welcome them back to “good old Pennsylvania.”

The murder of Jackson Pepper, continued from the week of Oct. 8, 2015. When criminal court opened at Montrose this week it was fraught with but few of the outward appearances that usually mark the initial scenes of a trial wherein a human life is at stake, but within 24 hours the news had been borne on the winds, as it were, that the case against J. James Eagan, alias Smith, charged with the cruel murder of Jackson Pepper, was really on, and the town swarmed with the witnesses on either side, and many others who came simply as interested spectators. Monday afternoon the case was called and those present were at once filled with expectancy. The prisoner was brought in by the deputies and was instantly the cynosure of all eyes; his step was firm and elastic, his form erect, his face slightly flushed and his cold gray eyes seemed to flash defiance at those about him, as he strode into the room with something of a swaggering gait and took his seat near his counsel, T. J. Davies, Esq., and to whom he vouchsafed a cherry, “How are you.” Mr. Davies moved to quash the array of jurors on a technicality, but was promptly overruled by the Court. He then made a similar motion to quash the indictment against the prisoner, and this, too, received an adverse decision from Judge Searle. Following these preliminaries every one settled down with resignation to the long and tedious undertaking of selecting from the jurymen, impaneled for the week, an even dozen, who were unobjectionable to either side. One after another, as their names were called, a juryman would be sworn and take the witness stand, where perhaps a few questions would cause him to “stand aside” at the command of the commonwealth, or perhaps they would “pass muster” so far as the State was concerned, only to be held up by one of Mr. Davies’ peremptory challenges for the defense, or else a “challenge for cause.” Few were found but what had formed some opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused. When Court adjourned on Monday, seven jurymen had been accepted and given into the sworn custody of Court officers Geo. C. Hill and Fletcher G. Warner.

(To be continued next week.) The above article is a murder mystery that took place in 1898 in Rush Twp., Susquehanna County, brought to you in conjunction with “Susquehanna County Reads” program. See details on the Library website. The Scavenger Hunt in the museum is now on. The museum will be open during regular hours.

I received a letter from a reader seeking an explanation of slander and defamation as the reader viewed it as an increasing problem in today’s society that was taking an emotional toll on the victims of loose lips and false gossip.  The reader compared it to a form of “bullying” and wanted a public column to stress that it was not only destructive, but also “illegal.”  We can all agree that gossip rarely generates anything positive and often leads instead to terrible feelings and deep wounds.  Moreover, gossip tends to have a tendency for exponential growth – with each telling, the original falsehood gets embellished.

There is a provision in the Crimes Code that makes it unlawful for any person to “communicate about [another] person any lewd, lascivious, threatening or observe words, language, drawings or caricatures.”  Such communications constitute criminal harassment if the communications are done “with the intent to harass, annoy or alarm” the other person.  Therein lies the difficulty – people who gossip do so with the intent (or certainly the hope) that their gossip will not make it back to people about whom the gossip targets.  In other words, your typical gossip tends to lurk in the shadows – not in the open – and it is difficult to say that there was an intent to “harass, annoy or alarm” the other person about whom they are spreading tales.

But in the age of social media – gossiping has taken on an entirely new and disturbingly broad nature.  In some ways, the law is rapidly adapting to keep up with these new ways of communicating – and defining what constitutes criminal communications.  For instance, in 2013, the Pennsylvania Superior Court decided Commonwealth v. Cox, wherein the defendant made online comments on his Facebook page claiming that the victim had “herpes” and that she “should stop spreading her legs like her mother.”  The defendant was an 18 year old female and the victim was a 15-year old juvenile female.  The defendant was charged with harassment for her use of lewd and lascivious language directed at the juvenile victim.  The defendant was convicted of harassment by a jury of her peers and was sentenced to 6 months of probation.  The defendant filed an appeal contending that the comments were the result of some interpersonal and familial issues she was having in her home and life, and that her comments were not made with any intent to harass the victim. 

The defendant argued on appeal that although her actions were morally wrong, they were not criminal communications.  To support this contention, the defendant noted that she realized that her comments were wrong and voluntarily took them down off her Facebook page.  The Superior Court disagreed: “[The defendant’s] misuse of the internet and social media was criminal.  The evidence of record establishes that [defendant] posted a statement indicating that the victim suffered from a sexually transmitted disease on an online forum, and that this statement was viewed by multiple people.  We conclude that this is sufficient to support a finding that [defendant] communicated lewd sentiments about the victim to other people, and an inference that in doing so it was her intent to harass, annoy or alarm the victim.”

In connection with the intent question, the Superior Court noted that there was no evidence on the record that would have supported any other inference that the posted lewd comments were intended for any other legitimate purpose.  In other words, the only reasonable inference from the evidence was that the defendant posted those comments with the intent to harass, annoy or alarm the victim.  The defendant provided no evidence to support any other reasonable interpretation of the evidence.  Given the nature of the words, no other reasonable interpretation is really even tenable.

While the reader addressed the letter to “slander” and “defamation,” those terms generally refer to civil actions that a party can bring when another party has spoken or written false things about the injured party.  In the criminal realm, the closest statute that deals with “slander” and “defamation” is the harassment statute – and the Cox decision provides a good example of the dangers of insulting another person with lewd comments in a public forum.  Depending upon the nature of the words, those words may result in criminal liability.  In the end, it is far better to follow the general rule – if you do not have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all.

Please submit any questions, concerns, or comments to Susquehanna County District Attorney’s Office, P.O. Box 218, Montrose, Pennsylvania 18801 or at our website www.SusquehannaCounty-DA.org.

There’s been a lot of talk about gun control lately. First, I want to state my position very clearly so there is no misunderstanding: I agree that how steady one can hold her gun is important, very important. But granting that, good breath control and the smooth, easy pull on the gun’s trigger are elements just as important for hitting one’s target every time. I think most folks in Northeastern Pennsylvania already know this so I’m probably preaching to the choir when it comes to gun control.

But somehow this knowledge seems to be outside the frame of reference of many in the political class, especially those in Washington, D.C. Take our President for example. Just recently President Obama has been talking a whole lot about “gun control,” but not in the aforesaid sense. He keeps demanding it’s time Congress pass “common-sense” gun control laws. Huh?

I’ve often heard it said that there are already 20,000 gun laws on the books and they’ve not solved the problem. That got me curious, so I did an internet search to see if I could verify that statement. Search as I did, I couldn’t come up with a precise number, but I did find that NRA Chief Executive Wayne La Pierre stated in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on January 30, 2013, that there were over 9,000 gun laws on the books. Further research turned up a figure of “over 300 relevant state and federal gun laws” on the books, according to a 2009 study by the Brookings Institute.

I think Gentle Readers get the picture. Every authority has a different figure and a different way of counting gun laws. The one thing we can be sure of is that no person can provide a definitive figure. Every number is a ballpark figure based, perhaps, on the political agenda of the person providing the figure.

In any case, my own opinion, based on the Second Amendment, is that whatever number of gun laws we have, it is too many. The Second Amendment states simply and clearly, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Whether there are over 20,000, or over 9,000, or over 300 relevant laws, is it not clear that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms IS being infringed by the very government that was established to preserve the rights of her citizens?

President Obama’s curious demand for “common-sense” gun laws implies that there are specific proposals before Congress, and that nefarious opponents are preventing enactment of these bills. I’m not aware of any such proposals, but I do wonder if the President is contemplating repeal of some of the 300, or 9,000, or 20,000 laws already on the books, which by all appearances are ineffective. Seriously? I’m not aware of any specific bill before the House or the Senate that would have prevented the most recent public mass murder. I’m also not aware of the Second Amendment Lobby holding up any bill that would discourage enforcement of laws that prohibit harming others with firearms.

Is it not already illegal to kill others, not just with firearms, but by any other means? Will people carry around the newly-enacted gun laws and throw a copy at would-be murderous perpetrators who are presumably unaware of this fact?

In published findings of the Crime Prevention Research Centre (CPRC), Researcher John Lott reported that “Since 2009 only 8 percent of mass public shootings have occurred in places where civilians are allowed to defend themselves.” Mr. Lott’s study concerns mass public shootings where mass murder is the purpose; it excludes gang-war murders and residential murders either familial or incidental to the primary commission of another crime. But the study makes clear that the mass murderers of his study were explicitly or by inference very concerned about the possibility of meeting a CCH (Concealed Carry Holder) who might be a deterrence to carrying out their planned killing spree. Hence, mass public murderers were very careful in their selection of “gun-free zones” as the location for their crimes.

The conclusion seems obvious; if only we could abolish “gun-free zones” law-abiding citizens would have a fighting chance to return fire for defense of their own lives as well as other potential murder victims. I DO hope President Obama confers with Congress on drafting legislation to accomplish this purpose, though I expect he will not. And why would that be? Well, let’s take the opposite argument.

Who travels with President Obama at all times? A heavily armed contingent of Secret Service Agents. If President Obama and candidate Hillary Clinton truly want a “Gun-free America,” would it not make sense that they would dismiss the armed agents who guard them 24/7? Would they not then be placed in the very same position as Mr. & Mrs. America who have no such special protections? Of course, our “Disarm-America--with themselves exempted--Leaders” will do no such thing.

But let’s get to the real meat of the matter, Gentle Readers. Gun grabbers have no interest in your safety or mine; what they want is control--control over a disarmed populace that is helpless to resist a voracious and insatiable federal government determined to be the definer, the giver, and ultimately, the usurper of all rights and powers. Gun control in their world view is nothing less than gun confiscation, when all is said and done.

The Second Amendment defends all the rest (of our Constitutional rights). Without it, not even a fuzzy facsimile of our other Constitutional rights exists. Students of history recall that the American Revolution began at Lexington and Concord when the British Army moved to confiscate colonists’ armaments. The British assumed that merely by seizing colonist firearms they could quell resistance to the Crown’s expansion of power. George Mason, no less a figure than the Father of the Bill of Rights, was later to assert that “to disarm the people . . . was the best and most effective way to enslave them.” It is undeniable that the right to own and bear arms is inextricably linked to liberty.

So what is the extent of gun control in America already? Consider the following gun control policies already on the books across America, here in Pennsylvania, or just to the north in New York: (1) Gun registration; (2) gun licensing; (3) taxes & fees on guns/ammunition; (4) waiting periods for gun sales; (5) limits on numbers of gun purchases; (6) restrictions on possession or sales of certain types of guns; (7) restrictions on possession of certain types of ammunition; (8) restrictions on who can own or possess a gun; (9) restrictions on carrying concealed weapons; (10) permit systems for carrying concealed weapons; (11) background checks on gun buyers; (12) “gun-free zones;” (13) mandatory “safe storage” laws; and (14) limits on magazine/clip ammunition capacity. Gee, is there any law-abiding gun owner that does not yet consider their Second Amendment rights as already being infringed?

Is it clear yet? Here are the net effects of the above “gun control” policies: they are used to collect information on and about firearms and their owners, and directly or indirectly establish gun registries, thereby enabling gun confiscation. They change the right enshrined in our Constitution into a privilege selectively granted and/or arbitrarily denied by the government. They increase costs of legal transactions and use of firearms. They delay transactions in firearms and impose costs on dealers. They make it unlawful for citizens to possess, own, or use certain firearms and ammunition. They deny the right of armed self-defense to certain classes of people. They impose legal penalties on citizens who possess a firearm in specified locations and within certain distances of kinds of locations, and thereby deter citizens from transporting or carrying firearms. They create barriers to rapid retrieval and use of firearms in emergencies. They limit the capability of the firearm itself.

It should be clear by now that the political class would like to frustrate every law-abiding citizen from even considering firearms ownership and training. Government discourages law-abiding citizens by making the owning, practicing, and use of firearms more difficult, more expansive, embarrassing or humiliating, and more risky legally. This is evidence that we live in a world upside down from the time of our nation’s founding. A government genuinely interested in liberty and the welfare of its citizenry would encourage widespread firearms education, safety, and training programs, and actually PROMOTE populace private ownership of firearms.

Raising the costs of ownership and throwing up innumerable barriers to ownership will never stop the criminal class or a mass murderer bent on a determined course of action. The true and best response to meet the challenge of such thugs is a well-armed citizenry prepared to defend itself at every turn. Even more important, widespread firearm ownership would put the state, as well as enemies of the state, on notice that good behavior is not only expected, but required.

Our Constitution was ratified by the various Sovereign States with the understanding that a Bill of Rights, to include the contents of the Second Amendment, would be added to the Constitution. Pennsylvania was one of those several States insistent that ratification was contingent on that understanding. Advocates of gun control may insist that their proposals have little or no impact on the people’s liberty, but they are wrong; they have already done serious harm. Every additional gun control measure chips away at this most vital Constitutional right. Each new measure only brings to light the inadequacy of the previous and demands for further restrictions--all to extend government further in the same direction and to its logical conclusion: firearms bans and confiscations. James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, wrote in 1787, “The sober people of America . . . have seen that one legislative interference is but the first link of a long chain of repetitions, every subsequent interference being naturally produced by the effects of the preceding.” Have we not been witness to such repetitions in numerous areas of regulation, particularly since 9/11?

If none of the above puts fire in the belly to oppose further gun control measures, consider the insanity of trying to control the use/misuse of inanimate objects. Consider America’s record during the 13 years of Prohibition (1920-1933); consider America’s success in the war on drugs. True gun control means changing people’s hearts to love and respect others. It is ill-intent that must be controlled, not inanimate objects.

I am aware that there are many “well-intentioned individuals” who are convinced that a “gun-free America” would be a good thing. However, others with less than altruistic reasons have also favored gun control throughout history. Here are a few for your consideration: Pol Pot, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Chiang Kaishek, Mao Zedong, and Idi Amin. Twentieth-century history is the story of over 100 million people murdered by government (democide), and made possible by “gun control” policies imposed on law-abiding individuals left with no effective means to defend themselves or their liberty.

Our government is unwilling and unable to even secure our international borders, leading to millions of people illegally entering America year after year. In anyone’s wildest hallucinations, what could possibly inspire confidence that a “gun-free America” could preserve liberty and lead to anything other than a hell-hole where law-abiding citizens were left to the mercy of criminal gangs and an out-of-control and tyrannical federal government?

Wake up America! The hour is late. All is not lost--yet; but America’s future depends on you. The Second Amendment, long abused and infringed, must be held as the last firewall if we value not only our liberty, but the liberty of generations that follow. The pretense of “gun control” is being used to nullify the Constitution. The result will be an America disarmed and defenseless in the face of enemies foreign and domestic. Sleep on or Stand Tall; the choice is ours.

Free Antibiotics Are Not Free

The annihilation of human life is upon us – and it’s not because of guns, or nuclear weapons, or even that stray asteroid spiraling toward earth. We are all going to die because the antibiotics we now use won’t work anymore. Why? Because anyone who has a cold or flu can get an antibiotic from their doctor if they whine loudly enough. Doctors, mostly overworked, cave into their pleas. OK, now things get worse. Chain store pharmacies are offering FREE ANTIBIOTICS.

Why are free antibiotics bad? Because of antibiotic resistance. Bacteria that would normally be stopped by antibiotics are becoming stronger and are able to virtually ignore the presence of the antibiotic. The result? You now have an antibiotic resistant infection (ARI) that no antibiotic can kill. Want some numbers? According to the HealthResearchFunding.org website, 2 million Americans acquire an ARI each year. Of these, 23,000 die directly as a result of the ARI.

And even more trouble abounds. The bacteria that live in our healthy guts are a garden of cooperating and competing species that regulate our intestinal health. When we take antibiotics, we kill the good bacteria in our intestines and sometimes develop changes in our digestion which can be severe. Clostridium difficile (or C. diff) infection is one of these conditions, a superinfection by a superbug which is extremely resistant to antibiotics and causes a colon infection with diarrhea, sometimes fever, nausea and vomiting and even death. Each year, 250,000 people are treated for C. diff and 14,000 die from it, notably the elderly.  

So, with American budgets getting tighter, loosening the price tag on prescription drugs commonly used by consumers is becoming a growing trend among American pharmacies and stores — including offers for free antibiotics at grocery stores. But with ARIs on the rise, public health experts warn that "free" can come at a dangerously high price.

Promoting free antibiotics at a time when the nation faces a growing crisis of antibiotic resistance "does not make good public health sense," according to the Infectious Diseases Society of America, which has gone on record as criticizing the giveaways.

"Most doctors know better than to prescribe antibiotics when they are not needed," said Anne Gershon, MD, infectious disease specialist at Columbia University in New York, "But many find it hard to say 'no' to sick patients who think antibiotics will make them feel better. We are concerned that these pharmacy marketing efforts will encourage patients to ask for antibiotics prescriptions."

Antibiotic resistance is "one of the key microbial threats to health in the United States," according to the Institute of Medicine, which has recommended curbing the inappropriate use of antibiotics — such as using them for illnesses they do not treat, like colds or the flu, or using them to enhance growth among livestock.

“The free antibiotic offers are dangerous because they could lead consumers to stockpile the drugs,” said John Santa, MD, MPH, director of the Consumer Reports Health Rating Center. “Consumers could meet with more than one doctor, get multiple prescriptions and save the antibiotics for later and that is not a trend we want to encourage or facilitate these days," Dr. Santa said.

Another concern is that when antibiotics are free, patients want them even more, Dr. Santa said, noting that during more than 20 years as a primary care internist, situations involving patients demanding antibiotics were one of the most challenging for him.

“It is frustrating for practicing physicians to see that major chains are reinforcing that behavior rather than discouraging it," Dr. Santa noted.

In some cases, the advertisements used to hype the free antibiotic campaigns are misleading, who noted that some of the ads plug the free antibiotics come just in time for winter colds and flu.

“These conditions are primarily viral, so they are giving the wrong message to the public that somehow flu and cold and cough should be treated with antibiotics," said Ed Septimus, MD, of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. "There is significant literature that suggests that the majority of these prescriptions are inappropriate for upper respiratory infections, most of them being viral. So our concern regarding a program like this is that we don't want to put any additional pressure, both on consumers and prescribers, to prescribe unnecessary antibiotics."

Yes, we all could use more money. That’s why we buy things on sale. But rather than put a free antibiotic on your grocery list, include healthy fruits and vegetables. An orange. Maybe broccoli. Because the antibiotics are not really free. You pay for them with your health and the health of your loved ones.

Ron Gasbarro, PharmD is a registered pharmacist, medical writer, and principal at Rx-Press.com. Write him with any ideas or comments at ron@rx-press.com.