Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 10 submissions in the queue.
posted by Fnord666 on Monday June 10 2019, @06:47AM   Printer-friendly
from the life-finds-a-way dept.

Submitted via IRC for Bytram

To Evade Pre-Prohibition Drinking Laws, New Yorkers Created the World's Worst Sandwich

To Evade Pre-Prohibition Drinking Laws, New Yorkers Created the World's Worst Sandwich

Near the end of the 19th century, New Yorkers out for a drink partook in one of the more unusual rituals in the annals of hospitality. When they ordered an ale or whisky, the waiter or bartender would bring it out with a sandwich. Generally speaking, the sandwich was not edible. It was “an old desiccated ruin of dust-laden bread and mummified ham or cheese,” wrote the playwright Eugene O’Neill. Other times it was made of rubber. Bar staff would commonly take the sandwich back seconds after it had arrived, pair it with the next beverage order, and whisk it over to another patron’s table. Some sandwiches were kept in circulation for a week or more.

Bar owners insisted on this bizarre charade to avoiding breaking the law—specifically, the excise law of 1896, which restricted how and when drinks could be served in New York State. The so-called Raines Law was a combination of good intentions, unstated prejudices, and unforeseen consequences, among them the comically unsavory Raines sandwich.

[...] The 1896 Raines Law was designed to put dreary watering holes like these out of business. It raised the cost of an annual liquor license to $800, three times what it had cost before and a tenfold increase for beer-only taverns. It stipulated that saloons could not open within 200 feet of a school or church, and raised the drinking age from 16 to 18. In addition, it banned one of the late 19th-century saloon’s most potent enticements: the free lunch. At McSorley’s, for example, cheese, soda bread, and raw onions were on the house. (The 160-year-old bar still sells a tongue-in-cheek version of this today.) Most controversial of all was the law’s renewed assault on Sunday drinking. Its author, Finger Lakes region senator John W. Raines, eliminated the “golden hour” grace period that followed the stroke of midnight on Saturday. His law also forced saloon owners to keep their curtains open on Sunday, making it considerably harder for patrolmen to turn a blind eye.

[...] Intentionally or not, the Raines Law left wiggle room for the rich. But a loophole was a loophole, and Sunday was many a proprietor’s most profitable day of business. By the following weekend, a vanguard of downtown saloon-owners were gleefully testing the law’s limits. A suspicious number of private “clubs” were founded that April, and saloons started handing out membership cards to their regulars. Meanwhile, proprietors converted basements and attic spaces into “rooms,” cut hasty deals with neighboring lodging-houses, and threw tablecloths over pool tables. They also started dishing up the easiest, cheapest, most reusable meal they could get away with: the Raines sandwich.

Law enforcement declared itself satisfied. “I would not say that a cracker is a complete meal in itself, but a sandwich is,” an assistant D.A. in Brooklyn told an assembly of police captains as the first Raines hotels sprouted up. Remarkably, the courts upheld these definitions of “meal” and “guest.” Reformers were understandably flabbergasted. The law itself was sound, Raines complained. It was the police and the courts that had made it laughable. He and his progressive allies had seriously underestimated just how far New Yorkers would go for a drink.

The court decisions were a turning point. With summer approaching, “Raines hotels” sprang up everywhere. By the next year’s election season, there were more than 1,500 of them in New York. Brooklyn, still a separate municipality at this point, went from 13 registered hotels to 800 in six months, and its tally of social clubs grew tenfold.

For the libertines of New York City, Zacks writes, the second half of 1896 was “too good to be true, a drunken daydream.” The hotel carve-out allowed drinks to flow at all hours. There was no obligatory last call, and the city’s liveliest drinking spots now offered cheap beds mere steps away. For Raines and the law’s other architects, this was the most alarming unintended consequence: their efforts to make New Yorkers virtuous had caused a spike in casual sex and prostitution.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday June 11 2019, @01:31AM (1 child)

    by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Tuesday June 11 2019, @01:31AM (#854010) Journal

    Yeah, though I would note that my understanding is some grocery chains have deliberately installed cafes in a number of their stores (which weren't previously there) to take advantage of the new situation.

    I guess my point was that these laws in modern times are even more ridiculous than those mentioned in TFA, as they essentially work on the same premise, but don't even require the fake sandwich to be served.

    Essentially: "Good god-fearing people shouldn't be able to purchase alcohol except with meals... but we'll let you take one (or six) for the road... and oh, we won't track whether you're even buying a meal to eat here anymore, but you still have to theoretically be able to buy a meal, so please be sure to look those sandwiches in the case over closely before paying for your six-pack of beer." It's even more absurd than the historical crap in TFA.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Tuesday June 11 2019, @09:15PM

    by nitehawk214 (1304) on Tuesday June 11 2019, @09:15PM (#854380)

    You have understood the bizarreness of PA correctly.

    Even some el-cheapo grocery stores now have a little walled off area with some tables and real sandwiches so they can sell beer.

    The beer distributors managed to convince the laws to let them sell 12's and 6's so they can try to keep up. Until recently your choices were "buy an entire case at a beer distributor" or "buy 6 at a 'restaurant' and pay a huge markup".

    The grocery stores are at least competitive in pricing. There was a lot of lobbying on both sides of this. And not just from prohibition-proponents, the distributors wanted to go back to the old way where they had to sell cases but could lock out most competition. The grocery stores wanted less byzantine laws on who could sell what.

    And as far as wine and liquor goes... well that is an even longer story of state-run monopolies that goes back decades.

    --
    "Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh