On October 8, the newspapers reported the case of one Jeremial Haggerty, a liquor dealer whose fourth class (grocer's) liquor license had just been revoked by the Board of Alderman. It seems the police chief had been going from shop to shop in late September with a request that the stores close on account of the Garfield obsequies: when he came to Haggerty's business, he noticed the beer pump dripping and saw several men standing at a counter drinking. Though not positive, the officer throught they were drinking ale. Since city laws prohibited a grocer from serving liquor on the premises, the officer brought the case before the Board.

Though Haggerty denied the charges--the men, he said, were drinking cider, the pump, he explained, had been used to fill some bottles which a woman had purchased but a few moments earlier--the Aldermen took away his permit. "In any other case but a liquor case," the Chronicle observed, "the evidence given by the defense would have outweighed that of the accusing officer." But liquor in Cambridge in 1881 was not just another case.

The last Massachusetts legislature had passed a law allowing each city or town by direct vote to say whether the local authorities should or should not grant licenses for the sale of liquor. Cambridge had such a referendum scheduled for the December 6, the day of its city elections.

The first week of November, a group of citizens formed the "Protection League," a group devoted to securing a majority "No" vote on the proposal to allow licenses. Upon formation, the group issued the following statement:

The league asks the sympathy and support of all good citizens of Cambridge who are opposed to the multiplication of dram-shops in this city, and who desire to have our streets cleared of the drinking places which offer such fatal allurements to our young men. The league especially directs the attention of the people to the fact that the issue as presented at the approaching municipal election is one that does not admit evasion or neutrality. Every citizen is called to vote either upon the side of the liquor traffic or against it.

The Chronicle took the opposite side in its four-part series of editorials "License or Prohibition." Arguing that prohibition tends to spread alcoholic consumption rather than stop it, the paper noted that "under prohibition there were four hundred known drinking places in Cambridge, where there are now about ninety."

***

In the days before proportional representation, before the Progressive Era, Cambridge selected its leaders by wards. Non-partisan conventions would nominate candidates for each of the five wards; the top vote-getters would win one of the ten seats. In its December 3rd issue, the Chronicle reported the proceedings of the nominating process under the headlines "POLITICAL!" "Charles River Railroad vs. The People...League Made with the Prohibitionists":

The storm which has been brewing for the past fortnight fell with a crash upon the Cambridge political field last Monday evening. No such fight has ever been seen here since Cambridge was a city, or is likely ever to be seen again. The combined forces of the Charles River Railroad Company with their treasury filled under the last assessment, and the fanatical no-license men went into the caucuses and succeeded in getting enough out of the whole to do about as they pleased. Already another ticket is in the field, however, and the fight is transferred to Tuesday next at the polls.

Each of the ward conventions was filled, many people attracted by mass mailed post cards announcing the Union Railway intended to pack the meetings. Pamphlets were distributed with the slogan "UNION RAILWAY VS. THE PEOPLE." Actually, Charles Railroad interests allied with no-license (prohibitionists) forces stacked each of the ward conventions, accepting or rejecting candidates on the basis of their stands for the railroad and against liquor.

The following week, the election--in which 5000 voters went to the polls--ended up much the same way. Those candidates affiliated with the Charles River Railway captured seats from all but wards two and three, and Alderman Chapman, the lone dissenter on the vote to grant C.R.R. the extension permit lost his chair. The outcome of the liquor license question was unclear--the tally on the referendum changed with each recount--but five aldermen elected were considered anti-license. "Cambridge is to be given prophibition by the railroad, this is the result and the only result of last Tuesday's election," the paper declared.