beefsteaks; and free lunches

[GEORGE THOMPSON]

Beefsteaks:  There is an illustration of the sort of affair that came
to be called a "beefsteak" in a book edited by John Grafton: New York
in the Nineteenth Century: 321 Engravings from "Harper's Weekly", N.
Y.: Dover, 1977, p. 154.  The illustration is captioned "A Democratic
Barbecue.  1884.  Democrats and their guests enjoying a Tammany-Hall
sponsored roast at a political barbecue in Harlem.  (Frank Leslie's,
October 18, 1884)."  It shows in the foreground a man biting at a
chop-like looking thing, while holding in his other hand a piece of
bread, while another man holds to his face something
indistinguishable.  In the middle ground are the backs of various men
grabbing for a platter of steaks, and in the background a man slices
at the front shoulder of a whole ox (head and horns included, though
not the lower two-thirds of the legs).  The caption doesn't call this
a "beefsteak", and I did not check the original source; nonetheless
the practice is the same: an orgy of carnivory in the guise of a
political rally (or vice-versa).

Free Lunches:   The Free Lunch counter was indeed a common practice
in New York, at least, in the late 19th century.  So common, in
fact, that I can't put my hand on a contemporary description.  I
believe that there is an essay on the free lunch in a booklet by a
star journalist for the National Police Gazette, but the only part I
have noted from it is the following: "The lunch fiend is always a man
who has seen better days."  Samuel A. Mackeever, Glimpses of Gotham
and City Characters, N. Y.: National Police Gazette, 1880, p. 51,
col. 1.  (The "lunch fiend" is an down-and-outer who cadges his meals
at the free lunch counter.)  Later, George Ade, in a nostalgic book
published in 1931, called The Good Old Time Saloon, writing of the
era before Prohibition, says: ". . . in any of the larger and more
popular and prosperous drinking resorts . . . the long table across
from the bar showed a tempting variety of good things to eat.  There
might be salted nuts, roast turkey, a spiced ham, a few ribs of beef,
potato salad, potato chips, ripe olives, sandwiches, Herkhimer County
cheese, summer sausage, and napkins."  But he contrasts this with
other joints: "Other bars not so generous would offer free bowls of
soup every noon.  Many would have free lunch specialties for every
day of the week, as, for instance: Monday, hot frankfurters; Tuesday,
poast pork; Wednesday, roast mutton; Thursday, Irish stew; Friday,
baked fish and dressing; Saturday, roast beef and mashed potatoes;
Sunday, dry crackers."  He also mentions the need to control
freeloading.

The practice of putting out a free lunch was old by 1880: "MORE
DANDIES CAUGHT.  For the New-York Daily Advertiser.  Mr. Printer -- I
am the proprietor of a public house, and according to the custom
now-a-days, keep a supply of crackers, cheese and codfish upon my
counter.  For some time back, my bar-keep, who is a lynx-eyed fellow,
and had a peculiar faculty of eyeing persons who come in, noticed
some movements which he knew to be wrong, and accordingly, the other
evening, when we were alone, he asked me if I was aware that persons
visited the house to help themselves to crackers, fish and
newspapers, who never spent a sixpence?  ***  "
        New-York Evening Post, May 26, 1820, p. 2, col. 4.  Evidently the
practice of freeloading was not new in 1880, either.  This letter did
not use the phrase "free lunch".

Obviously, the practice of offering a "free lunch" is not different
from the current practice of offering "free hot and cold hors-
doeuvres" during the "happy hour".  My impression of the slogan
"There is no such thing as a free lunch" is that this was a mantra
much mouthed by republicans back when they were maintaining a charade
of advocating fiscal responsibility; it was applied to government
handouts that did not benefit the propertied classes: "Just as the
free lunch costs the barkeepeer something, which becomes part of his
overhead, and is passed on to the drinker in the price of the drinks,
so to . . . ."  However this may be as a political theory, I think
that it is probably mistaken on a literal level: if offering a "free"
lunch (or free snacks at happy hour) lures enough boozers in who
wouldn't otherwise have patronized your dump, and they knocking back
liquor at a 400% markup, then the cost of the free lunch becomes a
negligible part of your cost of doing business, and indeed, the
increased volume many make it possible to sell your booze for only a
350% markup, making not only the lunch free, but also the booze
cheaper than it would otherwise have been.  If this is mistaken, I am
of course willing to be corrected by the economists among us.

GAT