Go to Pfaff's!

A Pfaff’s Restaurant at 696 Broadway?

There is also some evidence that, during and seemingly prior to 1869, Pfaff may have managed or at least been associated with yet another restaurant in addition to that at 653 Broadway: this time the establishment was located at

696 Broadway
 696 Broadway. In 1869, an article in the New York Herald places a “Charles Pfaff” in the restaurant business at this previously unknown location on Broadway—which may or may not be an erroneous address—and details a court case that links a Charles Pfaff as a restaurant proprietor to a “Bohemian” named Edward Lingham, who had failed to pay for a morning meal consumed at Pfaff’s establishment.1 Up until this point, Pfaff, the ever-genial host of Clapp and his friends, has been portrayed as generous in extending to his customers— especially the American Bohemians—at least a small credit. Yet, Pfaff’s employee, a barkeeper named Edward de Brauwere was clearly not feeling as much sympathy or kindness toward Lingham, whom the paper describes as a member of “a well known class of eccentric fellows that abound in this city” who expected to eat for free at a restaurant where “professional men” often gathered.2 The clear distinction between “eccentric fellows” and “professional men” suggests that undesirable Bohemian customers as well as a highly regarded regular clientele of businessmen patronized 696 Broadway. Lingham was accused of ordering a pancake and a cup of coffee, for which he owed the sum of 35 cents. But he refused to pay the check because he claimed he had no money with which to settle the debt. In his defense, Lingham argued that on several occasions Pfaff had willingly granted him credit and the ability to carry a tab; however, the barkeeper De Brauwere wanted the young man prosecuted, and so he, serving as the representative of Mr. Pfaff, brought Lingham before

Justice Dodge and the Police Courts
Justice Dodge at the Jefferson Market Police court.3 As the case was heard, de Brauwere, explained that “a great number of persons, particularly those called ‘Bohemians,’ come to the place and obtain their meals just as the prisoner did, and he [presumably Mr. Pfaff this time] wanted to have the thing stopped.4 The barkeeper went on to charge that Lingham ordered the food that he could not pay for and “consumed the same with intent to cheat and defraud in violation of an act to prevent frauds and fraudulent practices by hotel keepers,” &c.”5 At least at this time, “the prisoner was committed.”6

I cannot say for sure this is Charles Pfaff, but the story sounds plausible, even if a bit out of character given Pfaff’s reputation for catering to the

Jefferson Market Police Court
Bohemians’ desires, a philosophy of customer service that de Brauwere apparently did not share. Yet, a commentary in the New York Herald not only provides further evidence that this restaurant owner was, indeed, the former host of the American Bohemians, but it also suggests that Pfaff’s generous attitude may have been changing at this time: “Dreadful news in Bohemia! Pfaff has come out for the ready money principle.”7 In other words, Pfaff had begun to choose profit or cash payment over bestowing credit upon Bohemians who might not ever be able to pay. Yet, as the writer implies with a pointed rhetorical question that alienating the few remaining Bohemians might put the beer cellar out of business: “Does he [Pfaff] expect to shut up shop, then?” the writer quips, thereby expressing doubts about Pfaff’s change of heart with respect to his most famous customers. This sounds more like the attitude adapted by the unsuccessful Kruyt than Pfaff himself. Even so, the writer then considers another possibility, wondering, “And will this desperate step drive the said Bohemians to labor for the sake of pancakes and coffee?” In doing so, the writer seems to ascribe to the view of the American Bohemians as lazy, unmotivated men and women who will refuse to work for their meals, at least until Pfaff decides to stop providing them with food and drink. Pfaff may, however, be purposefully attempting to distance himself from the vestiges of the Bohemian crowd that had gathered at his establishment. Just three months earlier, after all, in December 1868, a writer for the Utica Observer remarked, “Bohemia, as it existed in New York, eating and drinking at Pfaff’s and taking no thought for tomorrow, is nearly broken up.” The writer asserted that Pfaff had already lost much of his former clientele and described the restaurant as “a banquet hall deserted,” and, this attempt to prosecute customers who refuse to pay may have been aimed at drawing more “professional men” to Pfaff’s establishments.8

It is important to note here that there are no known advertisements for a Pfaff’s located at 696 Broadway. Nevertheless, it is certainly possible that this place was known by another name since the barkeeper seems to be in charge, while Pfaff, as proprietor— uncharacteristically, I might add—does not appear to direct the day-to-day operations. But if Pfaff’s finances were already beginning to suffer from his previous willingness to give credit to the Bohemians (and it is certain that Pfaff’s liberality with respect to money early in his career resulted in financial hardships by the end of his life), this scenario is certainly possible and is perhaps even a way to start to collect on debts that were owed to the proprietor. Furthermore, the sequence of events also makes sense if Pfaff is intent on dissociating himself from his former American Bohemian customers in an effort to establish a reputation among the kind of business professionals and international travelers who seemed to be the type of clientele that would be most interested in the restaurant and hotel that he would establish in 1876, some seven years after this legal action against Lingham.

This page has paths:

This page has tags:

Contents of this tag: