Lizzie Borden Society Forum

Forgive the subject but I am curious about something. Every floor plan that I have seen of the cellar shows 2 seats in the Privy. This Privy was said to be a flush toilet and that no hatchet could be dropped down.

Were there indeed 2 seats? Were they both flushable? I have never seen a two-seater flush toilet. The floor plan made by Thomas Kieran on page 133 of the Knowlton papers shows 2 seats. Other plans as well show 2 seats. There are differences in that Kieran's plan shows them perpendicular to the north wall while 2 others show them up against the wall.

Why would you even have a 2 seater with the seats sides by side? Where would the privacy be? Was there at sometime a partition between the two? I've never seen one on any floor plan.

Two seat outhouses are common enough, could it be a draftsman being used to drawing toilets in a certain fashion? When were the sanitary sewers installed in Fall River, was it before or after the Borden house was built? If Kieran shows a double seat in a relatively current (1892) drawing, it was probably accurate. Maybe the early indoor flush toilets were designed for two; if people were used to two seat outhouses, perhaps they were accustomed to company at odd times. Any floor plans I've seen which include early indoor plumbing as part of the original construction generally just indicate a small room (probably single occupancy) designated "WC" for "water closet", and this may include some of the houses in Newport. If the basement privy was added by Andrew, or if the house was built before the sanitary sewers and city water were available, it wouldn't show up on an original floor plan for the construction of the house. The well at the northwest corner of the barn and the barn privy may indicate this is so.

Jeff, is right - two seat outhouses are common. My parents had a two seat outhouse on the farm I grew up on, which my family used until I was in high school as we didn't have indoor plumbing until then. Why two seats? Got me hanging - I never did figure out why two seats and I didn't ask. I don't recall that two people ever used it at the time time. However, a two seat flush toilet? Now, that is odd.

I wonder what the point of this was...one seat for men and another for women??? I have seen two seaters where one hole was smaller (child sized). I have also seen two with both the same size & have wondered why. I mean, togetherness can be a good thing...but shouldn't there be a limit?

I think the reason for the two seat outhouses was a matter of economy. It didn't take twice the material to construct the building large enough for two, it only meant extending two walls and a corresponding roof and floor extension. The facility would last twice as long before moving and rebuilding became necessary. The second seat was needed to ensure the pit filled evenly.

What it boils down to is that if a single seat cost $100 total, a second seat cost $50 more, and any subsequent seat cost an additional $50. The most efficient configuration was with the second seat.

The only experience I had with a privy was when I was in basic training in the army. They were used when we were out in the field and they had multiple openings. Not very pleasant.

For privacy there could have been a small partition between the two seats (not shown on any floor plan) but it doesn't solve the problem of flushing. Could there have been 2 flush tanks? That would seem to be over-kill and an unnecessary expense.

The more I think about it, the more I'm inclined to think it was a slip of the pencil on the drawing rather than a physical reality. It makes little to no sense for a second seat indoors. There was a facility in the barn in case of an emergency, and while unpleasant, any port in a storm! There was no economy to a second seat, other than possibly less plumbing needed if it was right next to the first one, and Andrew may well have had difficulty justifying the need for the first seat. The fact that it was in the basement may indicate plumbing expense was considered over necessity, a more logical place for a toilet might have been the second floor sink room.

At the rebuilt Ft. Michilimackinac on the Straits between the Upper Peninsula and Lower Peninsula of Michigan there is an outhouse built by the French Army in the 1700's. It is divided into two seperate rooms. One room has seven holes and is for the Enlisted. The other has three holes and is for the officers.

I'll see if I can scare up any info on two seated flush toilets.

I've seen two holed out houses, lol but never a two seated flusher.

oops no idea what caused double post.

Is it possible that older facilities, though unused, were still in place?

Here's a two-hole outhouse from http://www.victoriancrapper.com/Toilethistory.HTML

Several sites make reference two early two-hole or twin-seat water closets imported from England. It seems that modern plumbing is only about 150 years old--the lessons of the Babylonians and Romans were lost or forgotten. Pressurization and venting seemed to be issues as well as odor control. A post on a blog site made mention of ash being flushed down toilets in the mid-18th century as a form of odor control. That might put a different color on the ash pile in the Borden cellar!

Privacy as a value is primarily post World War II. I've been to communal toilets and communal showers in my travels around the world. It can be very disconcerting.

This site discusses design of both single and DOUBLE dry pit toilets:
http://www.schoolsanitation.org/BasicPr ... ilets.html

Are we sure the Bordens' had FLUSH toilets?

From some of the things I read about the case before visiting the house , I at first thought that the basement bathroom was kind of an indoor outhouse. Something that was dug into the ground with no riunning water. Of course this does not appear to be the case.

I remember seeing a spot where that had been cemented over but it was said to be where the hand pump was and it was in a different location from where the privy was, it was closer to the rear staircase.

Where our cabin is up at the lake, there is the remains of what was once a vacation home to a New York millionaire. He had it built in the 1920's across the lake from our place and even today it can only be accessed by boat. I guess he liked his privacy. The boat house and front guest cabin are gone but the main lodge is still standing along with the second guest cabin and the two seater outhouse. We used to joke that because he was a millionaire he could afford a two seater Outhouse. While every one else up there had a one seater. For some reason this two seater Outhouse was built about 300 feet from the lodge. I guess he was concerned about odors. This is the only two seater Outhouse I ever seen in person

You can still see where the walls of the cellar toilet were ripped out. I posted photos somewhere here on the board of it. The house was built in 1845, before the city sewers and water pipes came down Second Street.
I am inclined to think maybe the diagram was made without Kieran actually looking inside the Privy. He may have assumed it was an old two seater earth closet type of Privy.

I did a search on Google for the two seat toilet, and found the following web sites:

Just think, for as little as $1,400.00, you can own one of these beauties for your very own: http://www.wiserep.com/productDetails.php?id=5769

A “modest privacy wall” blocks inadvertent views of laps, but provides no protection at all against the pinched facial contortions your beloved undergoes while struggling to evict last night’s pot roast. and ... the Twodaloo’s strongest selling point is the way it can substantiate a couple’s exclusive bond.
Souce: http://www.thesmartset.com/article/article01280801.aspx

"Believe it or not, this is the real deal," Eric Benton replied. "The TwoDaLoo is currently in the prototype stage. We're marketing it to retailers like Home Depot, Lowe's, Restoration Hardware, Sharper Image, Brookstone, etc. When the orders come through, fingers crossed, we plan on going into production."
Source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... VTLDQB.DTL

Partial quote by nbcatlover @ Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:17 am wrote:... Are we sure the Bordens' had FLUSH toilets?

I'm wondering the same thing.

So, I did a Google search on history flush toilet and found some interesting information. Following are a few of the several web sites.

The first waste removal devices for residences in England and the United States during the nineteenth century were mechanical not hydraulic. "The earthcloset" was something of a portable outhouse found in many houses. Dry granular clay was dispensed from a hopper into a box to desiccate waste and prevent odor. When the box was full the earth and waste could be removed for disposal elsewhere. It was a semi-automated kitty litter box for people. A small improvement over a hole in the backyard with a bench over it... Source: http://www.victoriancrapper.com/Toilethistory.HTML

This web site has some interesting information: http://www.history.com/exhibits/modern/toilet.html

However, I found this web site even more interesting: http://www.theplumber.com/usa.html

Partial quote by Shelley @ Wed Mar 19, 2008 8:57 am wrote:... The house was built in 1845, before the city sewers and water pipes came down Second Street.

Do we know what year indoor plumbing was installed in the Borden house?

I guess part of the question is how many drawings made by different people as the result of direct observation are involved? If someone sketches or draws a floor plan without direct observation, only copying an existing drawing to some extent, an error can be perpetuated. If Kieran was pressed for time, he may have thought the location of the facility was more important than the details. Most engineers I've worked with tend to be very detail oriented, but this does not preclude errors or generalizations.

Is there some testimony from Alice Russell somewhere saying she stood outside the Privy door with a lamp when she and Lizzie went downstairs to the toilet Thursday night? Maybe Kieran never opened the door and looked at the layout of the actual toilet inside. When he sketched the Borden's bedroom, he has their double bed on the east wall between the SE corner and window, which I find hard to believe because in reality there is just not enough room for it, so I wonder just how precise and accurate his drawings are.

Something that just occurred to me...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but, didn't Andrew throw out the contents of his slop bucket the morning of August 4th? The reason I'm asking specially about Andrew is to avoid confusion about Lizzie's slop pail which she used for bloody rags.

If Andrew did throw out the contents of his slop bucket/pail, then it doesn't make any sense to have the occupants of the house using slop buckets if there was a flushable toilet installed in the house.

I thought Abby and Andrew tended to use the privy in the barn and Emma and Lizzie preferred the downstairs pull chain. I was thinking maybe Andrew had thrown his pot contents on the ground if he had forgotten his key to unlock the barn and access to the privy out there.

Bridget testified that Andrew used the barn facility, and Abby did so occasionally. She also testified that Andrew emptied his slop pail in the yard before unlocking the barn and going inside on the morning of the murders.

I can see where Lizzie and Emma or anyone using the guest room might want to use a chamber pot, it was a bit of a hike to the basement. The need for a robe, slippers, and a lamp might have been a bit tedious.

I'm beginning to have my doubts that it was a flush toilet. This is State Detective Seaver's testimony at the Prelim. (p435):

"Q. (Mr. Knowlton) Is there any running water in the house anywhere?
A. I do not recollect that I saw any.
Q. What is there in the sink, a faucet?
A. Possibly there is some in the sink; I am not positive about that. In the other rooms of the house I did not see any.
Q. The City water is let into the house, is it not?
A. I think it is.
Q. There is a water closet down stairs, is not there?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. That must be run by City water?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. There is a faucet in the sink?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. No hot water in the house?
A. No Sir.
Q. No bath tub in the house?
A. No Sir.
Q. Nothing except the water closet down stairs, and the faucet in the sink?
A. That is all I saw.
Q. No other water in the house?
A. No Sir."

I think when Seaver says "water closet" he is referring to the wash room not the privy. Maybe.

Then there is Officer Hyde's testimony at the trial (p840). He was the officer outside looking through the cellar window when Lizzie and Alice made the cellar trip:

"Q. (By Mr. Robinson.) I think you said that on coming down stairs, these two ladies, together, Miss Russell stood just inside, three or four feet from the bottom of the steps?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And Miss Borden passed right into the wash room cellar?
A. Into the water closet.
Q. In the first place she came into the cellar, you said, and then went into what?
A. The water closet, before she went into the wash cellar.
Q. That is, she kept right along in the track of the staircase?
A. On the north side of the cellar.
Q. Could you see her as she went in there?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you were then on the east side of the house looking in at that window there, or had you gone around?
A. I was on the east end then.
Q. You could see right across through the doorway, right in?
A. Right in to the water closet.
Q. And you said what she did, which was to empty the slops?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Then she came out?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Came along toward the wash cellar door?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And passed Miss Russell?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Miss Russell stood there holding the light. She went over to the sink in the corner?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. That would be the southeast corner?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And there rinsed the pail and put in some water. You heard the water?
A. I heard the water.
Q. Then did she go back to the closet again with it?
A. She went back upstairs then with Miss Russell.
Q. Didn't go back to the water closet with it again?"

I note that he heard the water when she rinsed the pail in the wash room. No mention of her flushing the toilet when she emptied the slop pail in the privy.

I'm not quite sure at times what they mean by "water closet". I ran across one reference where someone referred to the privy in the barn as a "water closet".

Bridget testified at the Prelim (p33) about Abby's use of the barn privy:

"Q. That privy out behind the barn, was that used by any member of the family, was that in use?
A. Mr. Borden used it.
Q. Did anybodyelse besides him?
A. Mrs. Borden sometimes.
Q. Did you ever know the girls to use it?
A. No Sir."

Maybe the term "water closet" was used generically by that time, referring to any toilet facility. I tend to think they made the distinction between the sink or faucet facility and the water closet fairly clear. I don't think the use of the term "water" would apply if it was a dry privy. You're right Harry, it is rather confusing.

Water closet, or "WC" is still in generic use today in England.

I could not find any data on two seat toilets in the Victorian era.

But, just think about it --

The Bordens had (maybe) a two seat flush toilet in the basement, an outdoor Privy, and all the members of the household had slop pails in their bedrooms. Geez, they were never more than a few steps from relief when they had to do their 'business'.

I wonder, did people 'go' more often back in that era? 8^)

We could make a case for the argument that the "cuisine" is a determinant for the number of toilets needed!

twinsrwe @ Wed Mar 19, 2008 12:24 pm wrote:Something that just occurred to me...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but, didn't Andrew throw out the contents of his slop bucket the morning of August 4th? The reason I'm asking specially about Andrew is to avoid confusion about Lizzie's slop pail which she used for bloody rags.

If Andrew did throw out the contents of his slop bucket/pail, then it doesn't make any sense to have the occupants of the house using slop buckets if there was a flushable toilet installed in the house.

When I was married to my kids father, we would spend summers at his summer place in the Adirondacks, built in the mid-1800's. There was a bathroom on the first floor, down the back hall. There was also a powder room on the second floor, very small. At the foot of the steps to the 3rd floor there was a shallow cast iron sink-type of fixture built into the floor, with a single faucet above it. It puzzled me at first, trying to figure out what it could be.

On the third floor were several bedrooms, all equipped with chamber pots. In the beginning, I scoffed at the idea of using the chamber pot when there was a perfectly good powder room (and toilet!) on the second floor. However, after getting up at night and facing that set of steep, dark steps down to the second floor powder room (the house had about 12 bedrooms, so we are talking a very large house), that chamber pot started looking more and more agreeable. And I also realized that that shallow sink at the bottom of the 3rd floor stairs was to rinse out your chamber pot in the morning.

I can see everyone in the Borden household using their chamber pot at nights, instead of going down to the basement.

You can understand the need for two-holers when looking in the census, with 6-10 children running around thanks to no birth control or other reasons, more than one "facility" would be in high demand for the average typical large family.

Found some interesting bits about water closets in this annual report written by the Rhode Island State Board of Health in 1880-1881.

"Col. George E. Waring Jr., thus describes an arrangement: * a closet, made of earthenware ,standing as a white vase in a floor of white tiles, the back and sidewalls being similarly tiled, there being no mechanism of any kind under the seat, is not only the most cleanly and attractive in appearance, but entirely open to inspection and ventilation. The seat for this closet is simply a well-finished hardwood board, resting on cleats a little higher than the top of the vase, and hinged so that it might be conveniently turned up, exposing the closet for thorough cleansing, or for use as a urinal or slop hopper. Such closets ought entirely to do away with urinals in private houses, and if, for convenience or to prevent the possibility of bath being improperly used, separate slop sinks are desired.These should be constructed like the hopper closet, the outlet being protected by a movable basker of wire cloth made for this purpose."


http://books.google.com/books?id=hkpNAA ... =&as_brr=1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


Van Nostrands Engineering magazine written in 1882.

"Water closets should be flushed by cisterns, never directly from the main supply pipe. But cisterns intended for storage of water to be drawn for drinking or cooking purposes should not be used for flushing water closets.In all cases the use of a special cistern for each closet or for a group of closets is recommended. Such water closets are manufactured in great variety by almost all water closet makers.

They are supplied with water either from the rising main, or the large tank in the attic, by ballcocks, made sufficiently strong to withstand the maximum pressure of water. In their simplest form cisterns have only one compartment, with a pipe attached to their bottom, leading to the closet, and with a valve closing the this outlet of the cistern, operated by a chain lever. An overflow pipe is provided to prevent accidents through leakage of the ballcock. Such tanks are only adapted for hopper closets, and should not be used where water is scarce, as with them a large waste is likely to occur."

http://books.google.com/books?id=fwYTAA ... closet&lr=

(edited March 23rd to fix the first link.)

Reading over this material brings to mind the tank found in Bridgets closet.

Could the tank in the attic have been used to collect rain water? Did the Borden house have rain gutters? The gutters would have to run into the tank and an overflow valve would be needed to let excess water bypass the tank. I've wondered about that tank, and what use rain water would have. I doubt it would be used as drinking water, but maybe used for the laundry or possibly used to flush the toilet if Andrew objected to water bills.

It might have been used as a second floor water supply before the city water was piped in. It would have been tedious for anyone living on the second floor to carry water up from the well on a daily basis. Perhaps some type of hand pump was used to fill the tank less often, maybe once a week.

How auspicious that my first post should concern toilets!
First, it's been my understanding from various readings that the basement "facility" was an "earthen toilet"-- nonflush. The "Legend" movie also highlights this in a scene in which Lizzie is interviewed while incarcerated, with chat about the basement "latrine."
The indoor/outdoor "facilities" were probably vestiges of the structure from when it was a two-unit tenement: Outdoor for agreeable weather; indoor for blizzards, downpours, and such. Or, one facility for one tenant, one for the other. Or, one for women and children, one for men.
If the indoor facility were a two-seater, it was probably to accommodate children and/or the presence of more than a few tenants, upstairs and downstairs.
I would wager that both facilities were original to the structure, that the penurious Mr. Borden did not update "the necessaries."
Also: "WC" would have been a generic, polite term for all facilities of the day, flush or no, just as we say "restroom" and "bathroom," even when the facility offers no bath.
As for two-seaters: I don't think two men of the era would have thought much of occupying the seats simultaneously. The women were probably more modest, except in extenuating circumstances. Children would have thought nothing of "going" together.
One of my dearly departed uncles used to tell an hysterical tale of a trick played on his sister and one of her friends when both little girls were occupying a two-seater. It's not the only "outhouse prank" story I've heard. Also, too, they were apparently a magnet for snakes in warm weather.

Oh yes SNAKES- boy do I remember that. I had an aunt way out in the country-no bathroom inside. I used to spend a month every summer there on the farm and how I hated that outhouse because of the big old black snakes. Spiders also love those outdoor privies!
Yes, I had a lot of misconceptions about earth closets, pumps, faucets and such garnered from the Lizzie movie, and one or two ill-informed authors but it was Len Rebello who straightened me out about the plumbing when he and Bill Pavao researched the issue. There were faucets, not a pump, in the sinkroom, the cellar and out in the barn, and the toilet in the cellar privy was a watercloset, hooked up to city water lines. A hatchet could not have been disposed of down that toilet in the cellar, and the barn privy vault was opened and searched.
As far as that box in Bridget's closet, it would have been right over the second floor kitchen when the house was a 2 family dwelling- I always heard it was to collect rainwater. Maybe it could have been utilized in some way in the kitchen below it. Or maybe the servant on the third floor could have had it for her wash bowl and pitcher.

From the LABVM/L website: the LBQ annotated

Caplain, Neilson. "Lizbits." Lizzie Borden Quarterly IV.4 (October 1997): 5, 19.
Interesting biographical essay on Victoria Lincoln, native of Fall River and author of A Private Disgrace. Also included is a short piece on Andrew's stinginess, citing Water Department Records that while Lizzie's father did add water to the house, it was "installed only in the sink at the back door entry and in the basement water closet, never on the second floor or in any other place in the house." In addition, Caplain notes that in all the 18 years they owned the house on 92 Second Street that Andrew made no additions or improvements of any kind.

And:

"The Proof is in the Pudding." Lizzie Borden Quarterly IV.3 (July 1997): 19.
Reprints of the Fall River Water Department Records of 1874-1878, meter reading reports on the Borden house, and Borden and Almy's application for water, showing that, perhaps, Andrew was not quite the extreme miser he has been made out to be.

http://lizzieandrewborden.com/Resources ... BQAuth.htm

Also, please find, attached, these pics of the tank that I took in May last year, while standing on a chair in Bridget's closet.

Tank in Bridget's closet

It does look like it has a ball-cock. I have no idea where the water would go or what it was for. I was told it is likely contemporary to the Bordens' tenure there.

BTW: The shiny metal poles in the first picture (to the right) are for wardrobe to hang on for the House when they are in character. It abuts the tank but is not part of it.

I recall the first time I touched the wardrobe pole, while with Bill Pavao (March 2004?), it fell down! Luckily we caught it in time! That was a shock! My first visit and the pole falls down... eeekkk.

I noticed the tank in Bridget's closet I when I was poking around the room. I think I took a picture of the closet, but I will have to look.

That night I opened the window blind to get a look at what would have been Bridget's view from her bedroom. Of course now there are modern day streetlights and houselights. I don't know if street lights were that common in Bridget's time. I looked at the buildings that seemed to be from Bridget's time and thought of her standing in the same place I was standing and looking at them.

I kept pulling the blind down in an attempt to make it rise up. It did rise up the first time but not as much as I would have liked. The blind kept coming down further and further each time I pulled it, until finally it came off the roller. "Uh oh" I said out loud. I took the roller from the bracket and rolled up the blind on it. Then I put the roller back in the bracket. I have had that happen before with other window blinds.

For years I thought the house seen from Bridget's window to the far left was the Chagnon house but learned both of these big houses behind the fence were built after the crime.In 1992 the brow-shingled one on the right was run as a B&B. The window shade is now fixed and is sorely needed in that east window in the mornings!

When I got up the next mourning, the sun was just high enough to shine in the window. yes it was bright. Then I thought of Bridget warching the sunrise from there.

That white house on the left of the picture sure looks like the house to the north of Chagnon house from the sketch that appeared in the newspaper in 1892. The location seems a bit off though. The artist might not have been that accurate with the position of the houses on third street.

The house in the right of the picture looks much different than the house in the 1892 sketch (the crowe house.) Although it has the same basic shape, long and narrow. If it had been remodled and had the high part of the roof extended from east to west it would look more like the house that is there now.

It might depend on how much detail the artist put into drawing the houses in the sketch that had less significance to the case.

Unless one or both of those houses had been moved, it would not leave much room for the Chagnon house and the pear orchard in between the two of them.

The tank in Kat's photographs appears to be purpose-built, the mortised corners on the box are very strong and indicate the box was designed for great strength. It is lined with what appears to be copper, the seams welded or soldered, so it was probably intended to hold water or some other liquid. It looks for all the world like a wooden toilet tank with a ballcock shutoff, and the vertical open-ended pipe may have served as an overflow pipe. In the absence of city water upstairs, it was very likely used to collect rain water. Maybe the rain water was used in applications other than drinking water or where the water was boiled or heated before use. It would have lessened the necessary number of trips to the well in the days before city water.

The only problem with that hypothesis is the tank position in the attic relative to rain gutters at the eave level. Water wouldn't gravity feed uphill from the eaves to the position high in the closet. Was the tank always in that position? If it was, a pump would probably be needed to get the water up to tank level, and at that point, the water could have come from anywhere.

There is (was) a device called a hydraulic ram which uses air pressure to pump water uphill. There are few moving parts, just a pressure tank and plumbing, so the flow would be continuous. If there was a hydraulic ram installed in the well, water might have been pumped continuously into the tank at a very slow rate. The further the water has to go uphill, the slower the flow rate. Water from the tank would have had substantially more pressure.

This is an informative and interesting post - I'm just fascinated by the unique fixtures found in older homes. I volunteer for a local historic site in the Kansas City area and we once toured the house of a wealthy family, circa 1870's. It had three stories and two upper floor bathrooms with clawfoot tubs and shower capabilities. A couple of the bedrooms had sinks in the closets attached to the walls. This home had it's own water tower attached. How common was that in those days?

Going by that cartoon picture, the Chagnon house looks to be more behind the Borden barn. I am at present looking into the dates those two houses were built as I believe they are both 20th century structures.

kssunflower @ Tue Mar 25, 2008 4:37 pm wrote:This is an informative and interesting post - I'm just fascinated by the unique fixtures found in older homes. I volunteer for a local historic site in the Kansas City area and we once toured the house of a wealthy family, circa 1870's. It had three stories and two upper floor bathrooms with clawfoot tubs and shower capabilities. A couple of the bedrooms had sinks in the closets attached to the walls. This home had it's own water tower attached. How common was that in those days?

Oh my gosh! Have you toured the Newport mansions? The Breakers etc?

Your descriptions sound a bit like that.

Someone on here a while ago talked about windmill power to get water to defy gravity?

Well, Yooper, I thought those really close-up pictures might be useful to someone, eventually!

Fargo broke the shade! Fargo broke the shade!!
I'm so glad you 'fessed up! I don't feel so bad, now...
I love it!
I think I made a slight stain on the bedside table and fessed up to that and was forgiven!

The photographs are very useful Kat, the ballcock shutoff seems to indicate some sort of automatic filling method. The tank could fill without being monitored and stop at a certain water level. Wind power would be another good method of filling the tank. There was a need to water a horse or horses in the barn also, maybe water was run directly to a reservoir in the barn from the well at one time.

In any event, it was a labor saving device. Hauling water is quite a chore and hauling water up to the second story would have been downright tedious if it had to be done a bucket at a time.

Is that an "orb" in the lower right corner inside the tank?
Those were 2 different pictures I took- so is it an orb, or something riveted there?