by Paul R. Spitzzeri
As the Los Angeles primary election campaign for mayor, held on 3 May 1921 and a three-person race between incumbent Meredith P. Snyder and challengers George E. Cryer and City Council President [Andrew] Boyle Workman, headed into its final days, all tried to convey confidence and project their success in outright victory by winning a majority of votes or at least being one of the two to compete in a runoff at the 7 June general election.
In the Workman camp, manager Jesse R. Shafer, an Angel City attorney, issued a statement claiming that there would be 75,000 votes cast in the primary and 40% of those would go to Workman. He added that, if there was not an outright win, “I am confident that Mr. Workman will lead the ticket” and Shafer concluded,
This is not a political issue. It is a vital question of principle. Boyle Workman’s positive stand for constructive progress has met with the approval of people. Mr. Workman was educated in Los Angeles and he will now be placed in a position where he can give back to the city the results of that education.
The current mayor’s team did not say much, with co-managers merely saying that they were confident Snyder would be retained, but it did offer an endorsement from banker Marco H. Hellman that called the mayor “honest and honorable” as well as “fearless and courageous in the discharge of his duties” in what was viewed as “a sacred trust.” Cryer’s manager, Kent K. Parrott revealed that a canvass was made by a third-party using tickets in sealed boxes in office buildings, factories and select sections throughout the city and that Cryer edged out Snyder 4,352 to 4,194, with Workman a distant third at just 1,454 votes.
In an editorial in the same edition titled “Final Election Suggestions,” the Express lamented the expectation that only a quarter to a third of eligible voters were expected to turn out for the primary. Professing “it is a waste of time to argue with such indifference,” the paper turned its attention to those who would fulfill their duty and it reiterated that “any one of the three leading candidates for mayor would render acceptable service” as they “all have honorable records and possess qualities that give satisfying assurance of good administration.” A vote to any of them could be cast “in the consciousness that the city’s interests will be safe in his hands.”
In its analysis of the eleventh-hour campaign, the Los Angeles Times, also of the 2nd, quoted Shafer differently than its rival, adding his remarks that
The Boyle Workman-for-Mayor whirlwind campaign, which we draw to a close . . . has produced the most highly satisfactory results, [and] emphasized to the people of Los Angeles the vital necessity of electing Boyle Workman Mayor and assured us of ultimate success . . .Shall Los Angeles elect a man who will champion all progressive movements and who will block the attempts of the radicals to laden us with restricting laws that would stifle industry, bar out tourists, depreciate land values and rob us of our personal freedom to think and act for ourselves or shall Los Angeles settle back into a state of indifference which has meant the downfall of many other communities before this? Boyle Workman’s positive stand for constructive progress has met with the approval of people of all walks of life from every corner of the city.
A last letter to the paper’s editor was published, from A.L. Stokes who commented that “I believe that Boyle Workman represents the new idea in politics” and that “he may be ahead of the times.” Tellingly, Stokes then remarked that “I, as well as my wife, have liberal views; we will vote for Workman,” but should the council president fall short, they would vote for Cryer because Snyder did not properly fulfill his duties. He ended, “it is hypocrisy that is stealing our liberties” and “we’ll not vote for a straddler any more; we’ll vote for no one who is afraid to declare himself” in his policies and views.
A last-minute appearance was made to the Woman’s City Club, a highly influential organization of female elites in town, and the next day’s edition of the paper quoted Cryer as taking a different tack on Sunday blue laws as Workman as he said he was less concerned about that issue than “a clean, harmonious, efficient administration,” while Snyder was said to have essentially made the same general remark.
Revealing again its preference for Workman, the Times cited his statements at length, including comparing his youth when he was assistant to his father, William H., when the elder Workman was mayor from 1886 to 1888, to current conditions, and he touted his long experience in city politics as “of vital importance.”
He, too, reminded hearers of his expressed views of desiring “an efficient, businesslike administration” as well as retooling the power and water departments so they could bring in more revenue. As for the blue laws, his prior remarks about them were “received with applause, and he also recast his support for more Port of Los Angeles work. He told the Club members and others in attendance,
I am anxious to see Los Angeles, the city of my birth, forge ahead until it becomes the greatest city in the world and it is natural that, as a native son and citizen, who loves every square foot of ground in Los Angeles, I should stand for harbor development.
The more liberal Los Angeles Record reported, also on election day, that Cryer advocates charged that Mayor Snyder’s workers broke the law by campaigning within 100 feet of polling places and called on the police to patrol these to prevent undue influence. One Cryer official decried such reports of intimidation and said that, if the police chief did not address concerns, he would go to the district attorney. Naturally, the Snyder campaign denied such “rough-neck” tactics, asserting it fought a “clean” campaign and expressed confidence in emerging victorious.
As for Workman, he told the paper, “it looks as though I might go over [the top] at the primaries” and he reported that his staff stated “I am polling a large vote east of Main street, in the Boyle Heights district,” where he grew up and long resided as an adult,” though he added that “my vote will also be heavy in the west side of town.” It was also averred that there was early voting being registered throughout Los Angeles. In general, observers opined that the total turnout would be higher than expected.
When the Times published its early review of the vote in its issue of the 4th, it reported that “returns from 265 precincts compiled at midnight last night gave Snyder a lead over Cryer of 1686 votes, with Boyle Workman a poor third and out of the running.” The incumbent’s loyalists were said to be shocked by Cryer’s strong showing, while Workman supporters “predicted that his antiblue law platform would bring out a large vote for him,” but were disappointed in his poor showing. Meanwhile, propositions placed, it was said, by William Randolph Hearst in his enmity against Bullock’s department store for its bridge over St. Vincent’s Place connecting two buildings—but really said to be because the store would not advertise in his Los Angeles Examiner—were losing 2 to 1.
In its examination in the same edition, Cryer’s campaign expressed its enthusiasm by uttering that “victory is now assured at the final example” because “principle has won over a powerful machine.” Parrot crowed that “Americanism has again won” even as Cryer was allegedly attacked for his patriotism even though he “served his country as a volunteer,” while the campaign manager strangely celebrated that “the intelligence of the American people has again been demonstrated.” He concluded that “opposed by a powerful political machine and unlimited money,” Cryer was sure to win at the general election.
Snyder’s people held out hope that he might win at the primary, given that there were more precinct returns to be counted, especially on the east side, where it was claimed that “Mayor Snyder is overcoming the early ratio which prevented him from having a majority of all the votes cast on the face of those returns.” With respect to Workman and his disappointing showing, he put out a midnight statement that included his remarks that,
I offered the people the principle of personal freedom, and although I am defeated I believe that in the near future the issue of infringement of constitutional rights involved in drastic prohibition and similar legislation will have to be settled and settled right.
As for myself , I find that defeat is not a tragedy and I am not worrying about it at all. Possibly I shall sleep better than if I had won.
The paper further observed that, “much of Boyle Workman’s vote . . . was an indorsement of Workman’s proposition for fair play for Bullock’s, and most of the Workman vote, it was said, will go to Cryer at the June election.” Given this, the prevailing view was that Cryer was assured of prevailing at that final canvass and the analysis concluded the close tally “came as a surprise and a disappointment to the Mayor.”
The Venice Vanguard of the 4th had a more trenchant analysis was that Cryer performed far better than even his most ardent supporters believed would be the case and that “his remarkable showing was the sensation of the day, while the incumbent’s camp “have not lost hope and today they begin planning for a vigorous drive from now until the date of the general election.”
With respect to “Workman’s Standing,” the Vanguard commented,
Boyle Workman’s small vote came as a great surprise, although it was generally figured that he would finish third. Workman’s eleventh hour announcement that he was running as an out and out candidate on a “light wine and beef [beer]” platform, lost him thousands of votes. Those who had previously supported him, left him in droves because they were unwilling to become identified with a so-called “wet” candidate.
Workman banked his entire campaign on his “wet” platform—and lost. His defeat will for many years stand as an object lesson for other candidates.
The next day’s Times that, with all but 16 precincts, all in the San Fernando Valley, fully tabulated, Synder had a lead of about 2,875 votes over Cryer and that the upcoming election would involve “one of the hardest fought municipal campaigns ever seen in Los Angeles.” Workman’s total was not far below 13,000, where as Cryer was just above 30,000 and Snyder at nearly 33,500 votes.
Parrott told the press that the Cryer campaign spent under $4,000 in its efforts and claimed that Snyder’s forces expended up to $50,000, while asserting that the latter was much like the infamous New York Tammany Hall machine. The mayor observed that less than half his supporters went to the polls, which was a surprise to him, but he expressed confidence that the vigorous campaign, with talk of a purge of its leaders, to come would drive turnout higher for him and lead to victory. Notably, the only of the trio to win his home precinct was Cryer, while Shafer only stated that “Mr. Workman was gratified by the vote he received. He believes that the ideas he stood for in this campaign will ultimately prevail.”
In an editorial, the Times, which delighted in publishing a cartoon celebrating Hearst’s face-plant on “St. Vincent’s Blind Alley” below the “Bullock’s Bridge,” observed that it was “a dry primary” and that “every candidate suspected of even the slightest precipitation of moisture,” meaning support of any Prohibition rollback, “was decisively beaten.” It added that voters had “little sympathy with radicalism, faddism or Socialism,” while any support for labor unions, which the Times was vociferously against, was minimal.
It reiterated the importance of Cryer’s surging vote and the disappointing outcome for the mayor, especially given how well Council incumbents performed. After repeating that the day when Socialists were a threat to the establishment was long gone, the editorial turned to Workman at some length, remarking,
Boyle Workman’s friends were disappointed . . . failing to recognize that merit does not always command popularity. Workman owes his defeat in a large part to his open confession that he favors a modification of the Volstead act permitting the sale of light wines and beer. The liquor issue, while not on the ballot, was obtrusively present in the minds of the voters.
Mr. Workman was a victim of his own convictions, honestly expressed. He would rather be right with his own conscience than be mayor of Los Angeles. He said to some of his friends several days before the election, “I would rather be a loser than a trimmer [someone who changes one’s views for personal gain].”
The paper informed readers that Cryer “is honest, efficient and popular” and maintained an “excellent record” which was expected to win over Mayor Snyder (and his Hearst support, sniffed the Times). The Highland Park Herald of the 6th put Workman’s showing succinctly enough: “Boyle Workman, the wet candidate, was most completely snowed under,” though his poor showing was deemed surprising to many observers.
Letter writer A.Q. Stokes (perhaps the wife of the aforementioned A.L.?) offered a critique of Workman’s showing in the Times of the 12th, insisting that “Boyle Workman wasn’t beaten because he was wet, rather because some one else was wetter” and offered that “his vote was remarkable” because “he had no organization and he is in a position to elect either candidate right now.”
Whether either was true, Cryer emerged the winner on 7 June and went on to secure reelection three more times, serving as the Angel City’s chief executive during most of the Roaring Twenties—though increasingly criticized as “Parrott’s Parrot” and presiding over growing corruption in municipal government.
Workman returned to the council in 1923, won in a new district two years later, and then decided against running again in 1927, serving again as president, throughout those four years. After the relationship between Cryer and Parrott soured and the latter leaked to the press that the former decided not to run again in 1929, Workman jumped in for the primary, but he only garnered 2,000 votes, or 1% of the total, finishing just 10th of 14 candidates. John C. Porter won easily, but then presided over Los Angeles during the early Depression-era and lost the 1933 campaign.
This look at the 1921 primary campaign of Workman is notable for his stances, clearly not resonating enough with voters, as well as often pointed pronouncements, some of which are certainly resonant now. It turned out that he was the last of three generations of his family who held major political office in the Workman family, though public service hardly ended with him, as the career of his sister, Mary Julia, and others showed.
Saying that Workman’s defeat was predictable would be hindsight. However, as hinted in this post, his public defiance of federal law echoes our governor’s recent declaration that “California is not Washington, D.C.” Both are bold moves and rhetorically risky – comparable to betting all-in during a round of gambling.
Such open statements undoubtedly can draw immediate attention and help craft a distinctive personal brand. Yet voters and constituents will also take other factors into account to judge them, such as the political role of a mayor or governor within the broader spectrum, the timing of the statement, the current national priorities, the sense of unity, and so on.