Brooklyn – Death claimed Stephen Fitch Breed at the age of 38. He was born in Brooklyn, the eldest son of Robert Fitch Breed and Emma M. Beers Breed. His paternal grandfather, Stephen Breed Sr., came to Brooklyn from Stonington, Conn. in 1812. Mr. Breed, when he came to Brooklyn, purchased the farm which has remained in the Breed family for over 100 years. When Mr. Breed came to Brooklyn he moved into what is held to be the first house built in that territory of this county, which was on the farm purchased and was built by Adam Miller in 1787, which stood by the large spring south of the present road. (The first settlers in Susquehanna county were Ozias Strong and Adam Miller. Ozias Strong registered his land before Mr. Miller). Stephen Breed was an exception to most of the early settlers, inasmuch as he brought $300 in cash, in those days a large amount, with which to begin life in his new home. In 1822 Mr. Breed built the present residence and opened it as a house for public entertainment and during all the days of the old Milford & Owego Turnpike, “The Travelers’ Home,” as it was called, was an oasis in the tiresome journey over the hills. It was a temperance house, and militia drills were held in the smooth field south of the house. Stephen Fitch Breed inherited the farm after graduating from Binghamton Central high school in 1894. He was an elder in the Presbyterian Church, a school director and a Republican. He is survived by his mother and his wife, Lizzie Wright Breed, and two brothers.

Montrose – While H. E. Cooley was returning in an automobile from the Binghamton auto show, his machine skidded into the ditch as he was near Lake Mont Rose. One of the rear wheels was smashed. A passing farmer’s team [of horses] towed the damaged machine to his garage. Also There is a growing demand in Montrose for homes. There are fewer houses for rent now than ever before, nearly every house being occupied. What is needed is a number of houses that will rent from $10 to $15.

Boucherville – Levi T. and son, Selden C. Birchard, breeders of thoroughbred Jerseys, lately sold 25 head from their herds to Superintendent Beemer of the Hillside Home, Clark’s Summit. Tuberculosis recently infected the Hillside Home’s cows and it was necessary to kill them and buy a new herd.

Elk Lake – The ice plow began to sing on the lake Tuesday morning. C. W. Stedman and J. G. Cart have charge of filling the ice houses around the lake. Also many farmers improved the sleighing by drawing logs to the sawmills. C. S. Lathrop has his mill in operation.

Harford – “Bulletins from the Temperance War” will be the topic of the Endeavor service Sunday evening. Leader, Miss Jean Follett.

Gibson – A carload of cheese boxes arrived at New Milford for the Gibson creamery last week. This is the second carload within a year and it speaks well for the prosperity of the association. Both cheese and butter are made and a ready market is found for them.

Gelatt – One morning, a short time ago, when C. J. Gelatt—who has never been in the habit of locking a door at night—got up in the morning and found a tramp sitting by the heating stove. The doors have been locked every night since.

Jackson – It is reported that a man, some 30 years old, traded a pair of felt boots and rubbers to a man who lives in Gibson township, for the latter’s 14 year old daughter, and that the pair are now living in Jackson township as man and wife. The people in the same two townships are doing missionary work among the heathen in foreign countries.

Forest Lake – Wm. H. Street, aged 75 years, died on Feb. 9, at the home of J. P. Burr. Mr. Street had been in failing health for several years and had spent the winter for some time at the soldier’s home, Johnson City, Tenn., having served his country in Co. D, 50th Regiment, Pennsylvania Volunteers.

New Milford – One of the old land marks of New Milford is being removed this week. The old orchard on what is known as the “Burrus Place,” is being cut down. For nearly 75 years this orchard has been a familiar sight to the citizens of the town and many of the historic events of the town have taken place in the shade of its trees. On Aug. 22, 1862 more than 50 years ago, Co. F, of the famous old 141st Regiment, Pennsylvania Volunteers, was recruited here, and the people of the town turned out in mass and served a dinner in this orchard as they bade the brave soldier boys God speed in their efforts to put down the rebellion. But few of the 96 men who marched out of the orchard fifty years ago are living now to see the old trees cut down to make room for modern progress. In a few years this old land mark will be only a memory, and when its site is covered with modern business blocks, or, perhaps a large manufacturing plant, it will be hard for the youth of the city to realize that this historic old orchard ever existed.

Clifford – The fruits of practical Christianity were never better exemplified than in the generous rally of this community in relieving the pressing necessities of Mrs. George Snedeker and family, whose husband and father lost his life in their burning home. A generous supply of clothing, cash, furniture and provisions has relieved all present necessities.

Lawsville – The directors of the Lawsville Center Creamery Co. are busy with their men filling the ice house with ice from Archie Southworth’s pond.

Herrick – A few short moons ago, Charles A. Casteline was possessed of exuberant spirits and all the world was a bunch of happiness and sunshine. It was then he took a fair damsel for better or worse. She, with motherly feeling, took compassion on him and they were joined “till death do us part.” But the scene changes and another story can be told. She folded up her tent and hied to the hills of Wyoming county there to remain notwithstanding the entreaties of her leige lord and master. Charlie has become discouraged and says he will pay no bills of her contracting. (Forest City News)

Silver Lake – We were much interested in a gold “25 cent piece” shown us by Hon. Geo. C. Hill. This handsome little piece of money is in an excellent state of preservation, although Mr. Hill has carried it in his picket for more than 49 years—from the time of the second enlistment in the Civil War. There was a custom many years ago among the boys and girls, of eating a “filopean.” Following the eating of filopean, by a boy and girl, the boy or girl first saying filopean, was entitled to a present from the other. Mr. Hill won a present in this way, and the girl gave him this gold piece, just as he was leaving for the Civil War. He highly prizes it.

Back in February 2008, I did a column that addressed to some degree the public debate on “torture” and the question of whether physical and psychological force could be utilized on a suspect where an “imminent threat” to other citizens was readily apparent. The column was prompted by an article I read on an interview that Justice Antonin Scalia gave to the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) wherein he indicated that the Constitution does not have an explicit ban on torture. As an example, he indicated that it would be “absurd” to suggest that a police officer was not permitted to “smack someone in the face” if the officer knew that the defendant had “hidden a bomb that is about to blow up Los Angeles.” In other words, Justice Scalia suggested that it becomes a proportionality question – was the force utilized reasonable in light of the imminent threat presented? Justice Scalia was widely attacked for these comments and his refusal to accept a bright line rule. The critics dismissed his “ticking bomb” analogy as being absurd and unrealistic.

I received a good bit of negative feedback on that particular column – several readers assumed that I was endorsing torture as an investigative tool. I apologized to them for leaving that impression, but stressed that the purpose of the column was only to prompt some thought about what limits should be placed on law enforcement in their attempts to elicit information in the face of an imminent threat of death to innocent parties. I also wanted people to think about how they would define torture itself – as the definition of that term likely frames the entire debate.

After the response to that column, I had some trepidation about addressing the latest controversy concerning the use of unmanned drones to kill United States citizens who were allegedly plotting terroristic acts against the United States. Then I received some emails requesting that I address the issue – and I decided that it would be cowardice to duck the question. The hardest part was attempting to determine what my reaction would be if a different Administration had decided to pursue this kind of policy. After all, perspective is often determined by whose ox is being gored. There is no easy answer to that question – the Bush Administration used drones – but not nearly to the level that the Obama Administration has utilized them – and there was never a report of the Bush Administration using a drone to kill a United States citizen.

The Constitution clearly indicates that no person’s life will be taken without due process – which requires an arrest, trial, conviction, sentence, and the appellate process. On the other hand, the use of deadly force in a necessary component in national defense questions and the President’s primary job is to keep us safe and secure. President Reagan retaliated against Momar Kadafi for the bombing that killed to Americans in Germany, President Clinton bombed a pharmaceutical factory in the Sudan in 1998 as it was suspected of producing chemical weapons; and President Bush invaded two different countries that Congress deemed were imminent threats to the United States. There is a long history of American Presidents using force – sometimes unilaterally and without Congressional approval – ostensibly for protection of American interests.

What makes this new drone policy different is that we are now attacking and killing American citizens without any semblance of due process in countries that cannot remotely be considered battlefields – and that seems to have struck a deeper cord with people across ideological bounds. The current Justice Department memo that outlines the use of this deadly force against American citizens is so vague that most Americans are having a hard time processing and accepting it. Even more troubling has been the refusal to rule out the use of such force within the country, not just outside of it.

Why not simply attempt to capture these Americans? A 16-year old Denver-born American citizen was killed in an outdoor restaurant in Yemen by a drone attack and he should have been accessible to our military personnel in cooperation with the government of Yemen, which was an ostensible ally in the war on terror at the time of the drone attack. After all, we successfully sent our brave military personnel into the personal compound of Osama Bin Laden in the mountains of Pakistan and attempted to capture him. Why could we have not done the same for a 16-year old having a meal in an outdoor restaurant in Yemen?

There may be very good reasons for the decision – we just are not hearing them – nor are we hearing that there are good reasons for our government’s failure to tell us the good reasons for the use of such deadly force against our fellow citizens. As I have said before, it seems more and more like we have gone down the rabbit hole. The Obama Administration has advocated Miranda rights for enemy combatants on the battlefield, the closure of the military prison that currently holds many dangerous terrorists, and civilian trials on American soil for non-citizen terrorists. On the other hand, the same Administration dropped a bomb on an unindicted 16-year old kid from Denver not only without judicial process – but without even giving a public explanation for the decision to assassinate a juvenile offender.

You may recall that the United States Supreme Court recently determined that juvenile offenders can never receive the death penalty - and there is the suggestion that life imprisonment itself may be cruel and unusual for juvenile offenders. If this 16-year old kid had been captured, tried and convicted, our Constitutional framework would not have allowed for his execution under any circumstance. President Obama stepped outside all of those constitutional restraints – no due process, no arrest, no trial, and no appeals – simply immediate execution by drone through Presidential fiat. No explanation, no justification, no facts whatsoever – just the death order itself. It certainly put a new light on the waterboarding debate.