In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

36 The swearing in of Tom Eagleton as circuit attorney took place on New Year’s Day, 1957, at 11:00 a.m. It was a joyous occasion attended by members of the bench and bar, city dignitaries, friends, and members of the family. Many who knew Eagleton from his student days at County Day praised him and expressed confidence in his ability to serve. Several praised to the skies the progress that the city had made educationally and racially. One pontificated, “I know Tom Eagleton is not going to be just a prosecutor , because I know something about his father and something about his father’s ambition.” Among the last to speak was a proud Mark Eagleton Sr., who focused on the three ingredients of success: integrity, intelligence, and industry. He reminded Tom and his staff that questions of conduct should never be an issue, for integrity is “sacred.” Intelligence should be no problem, he assured, for “Tom’s capacity is adequate,” and the “staff . . . is able.” Eagleton gave greater attention to industry. He expressed a warning that lawyers who do not focus on the task at hand will fail: “Any time someone comes back and says that a case was lost [we] feel bad for two reasons, not just because [we] lost but because . . . it was not prepared properly. . . . .Nine times out of ten it wasn’t . . . thought through.” “Buz” Fredericks, already designated as Eagleton’s first assistant, later placed his own take on Mark Eagleton’s admonitions: “There will be no partying in my son’s office.” The last to speak, Tom said that “I humbly believe that I shall not fail, because I feel I possess such a desire to serve and such a willingness to work at the job.”1 Immediately afterward, Mark Eagleton invited the attendees to a drink and sandwich at the Cortez Room of the Coronado Hotel. How a twenty-six-year-old with limited legal experience could have secured such a position needs to be put into the context of the local Chapter 2 serving City and state Government 37 serving City and state Government political milieu to include St. Louis County and the City. Keep in mind that St. Louis City had the unusual distinction of being both a city and a county. Consequently, it had a sheriff, a recorder of deeds, and other offices ordinarily reserved solely for county government. While municipal employees came under a strict civil service law, a patronage system still existed for county workers. After the Democratic dominance of Mayor Bernard Dickmann during the 1930s, neither party controlled local politics until the early 1950s, when the Democratic Party reasserted itself. But no Democratic Party leader dominated the local organization in the same way that Boss Tom Pendergast had in Kansas City during the 1930s. Robert Hannegan of the Twenty-first Ward had limited influence when he forged an alliance with Senator Harry Truman of Jackson County, which contributed to Truman’s reelection victory in 1940 and Truman’s nomination to the vice presidency in 1944 during Hannegan’s chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee. Afterward, Hannegan became President Truman’s postmaster general while continuing to serve as national committee chairman until 1946. By 1949 Hannegan was dead.2 Nobody in St. Louis City afterward wielded that sort of power. It instead resided in the city’s twenty-eight wards, each of which elected an alderman and a committeeman (and a committeewoman who had little influence ). Aldermen served on the Board of Aldermen, but they played second fiddle to the committeemen who dispensed patronage and services. The latter provided jobs and favors to the precinct leaders, their workers, and friends in return for contributions and loyalty. This enabled committeemen to deliver the vote on election day for national, state, and local candidates of their choosing. This was often done with money changing hands. The spoils system was alive and well in St. Louis, and, depending on the control of the committeeman, individual fiefdoms existed. Many of these ward bosses, the majority of whom were Irish Catholics, were colorful characters in their fedoras, camel-haired coats, and ever-present cigars— reminiscent of the zany figures that reporter Damon Runyon described in his coverage of New York City nightlife during the previous generation . This included the same sort of nicknames—monikers—that Runyon assigned to his characters and popularized in the musical Guys and Dolls that was based on his writings.3 Among the most influential was the...

Share