It's the account of Pomona's continuing efforts to show it was no longer a place where demon rum ruled the day.
But reading between the lines, it also looks a lot like Ontario was poking fun at its neighbor.
The item appeared a few days after the 1914 statewide elections, which included 48 measures on the ballot. One of them, Amendment 2, was a statewide ban on alcohol sales.
Over in the more-genteel Ontario, alcohol was never allowed to be sold legally (though oddly, wine made from vineyards along its eastern boundary was big business in those days).
Pomona, on the other hand, spent much of its first 25 years of cityhood being pushed around by its saloon interests.
But Election Day 1914 offered an opportunity to show off a new Pomona, occupying the moral high ground of the "drys" - the anti-alcohol group - against the evil "wets."
Pomona's efforts were impressive.
The story in the Daily Report said supporters polled every Pomona registered voter and got more than 2,600 to sign a statement vowing a vote for the anti-booze measure. Another 2,300 gave a verbal commitment.
A list of every Pomona registered voter was made, ranking them "dry" or "wet." By election day, supporters proudly predicted the prohibition measure would pass in Pomona by as much as a 9-to-1 margin.
But once voters reached the sanctuary of the ballot booth, many had second thoughts.
"Dry" supporters, confident they had at least 5,000 voters in their pockets, were shocked when only 2,172 voted for the alcohol ban.
The measure did pass in Pomona all right, but by a mere 2-to-1 margin. While the city still got a greater percentage of "dry" votes than Ontario, it didn't matter anyway as the rest of the state voted to keep saloons open.
But that final tally left Pomona supporters shaken by the tall tales they had apparently been told by voters. Of course, the Daily Report dutifully detailed the embarrassing incident while Pomona's Daily Progress mentioned nary a word.
"It only proves that a lot of good people changed their minds between last July and Tuesday - or they fibbed when they declared they would vote for a dry state," an exasperated Pomona supporter told the Daily Report, Nov. 6.
The article detailed Pomona's shortcomings, with just a hint of glee.
"Certainly hundreds of Pomona folks - good Christian and honorable folks - fooled us," the supporter told the paper. "There are some cheerful fibbers in beautiful Pomona. There are 3,000 more church members than there were dry votes on Tuesday."
Ah, but the smug Daily Report got its own comeuppance during the same election.
The paper aligned itself with the candidacy of Ontario resident Clarence D. Van Wie for the 2nd District seat on San Bernardino County's Board of Supervisors.
The newspaper was incredulous that 11 years had passed since an Ontario resident served on the board. The two previous holders of that seat were from Cucamonga, as was Van Wie's opponent, William Kincaid.
"The Report does not consider geography of paramount importance in politics," it wrote on Oct. 22, and then admitted that, darn it, Cucamonga had held the seat for just too long.
"By all the rules of fair play, Ontario, the chief city in the district, is now entitled to a supervisor," the paper pouted.
Van Wie won out in Ontario, but not with many other district voters. Kincaid, who built Cucamonga's first grocery store and helped establish the First National Bank of Cucamonga, was the overall winner in the 2nd District.
Kincaid served his four-year term and was, to the Daily Report's dismay, then followed by a succession of Upland residents.
In fact, it would be not be until late in 1954 - 40 years after the 1914 election - that an Ontario resident next sat on the board.
Joe Blackstock writes on Inland Valley history. He can be reached at 909-483-9382, by email at firstname.lastname@example.org or Twitter @JoeBlackstock.