Love County Tax Records: Research Adventures in an Old Jail

After my successful morning discovering over twenty Harris family deeds at the Love County Courthouse, I was eager to dive into tax records that might reveal more about my ancestors’ financial status during their time in Oklahoma. What I didn’t expect was to find myself kneeling on a concrete floor in a converted jail cell, using an upturned plastic bin as a makeshift desk while my phone battery slowly died. Sometimes the most valuable genealogical treasures are hidden in the most unlikely places—and this afternoon’s adventure perfectly illustrates why flexibility and persistence are essential skills for onsite research.

This is the fourth post in our onsite research series. Read the other posts here:

• Onsite Research: Beyond Digitized Records: explains the onsite research series
• How to Prepare for an Onsite Genealogy Research Trip: explains the kinship determination project and research objective
• Treasure Hunt at the Love County Courthouse: Uncovering Land Records: describes the morning’s successful deed research

 

AI helped write some of the sentences in this blog post.

The Broader Research Context: Adding Economic History to KDP

As I mentioned in earlier posts, this Love County research was part of my Kinship Determination Project (KDP) for Board for Certification of Genealogists (BCG) certification. While my KDP focused on proving kinship between three generations of the Harris family, I hoped to add valuable economic context by tracking their tax records over the years. This was especially important for understanding Dock Harris’s life story—he lived through the Great Depression, and after leaving Love County, he settled in the heart of the dust bowl region before eventually migrating to California. I wanted to fully understand what happened economically throughout his life, and these Love County tax records represented a crucial early chapter in that larger economic narrative. The tax assessments would help me understand his financial starting point before the economic upheavals that would define much of his adult life.

What I Knew Before Diving Into Tax Records

Before heading to the tax records, I had one crucial piece of information that would guide my search: a newspaper clipping from the Friday, May 28, 1920 edition of The Marietta Monitor showing personal property tax valuations by township. This list revealed that Arza Harris (John C. Harris’s widow) was assessed $75 in personal property in Burney Township, while D.H. Harris (Dock Harris) had $480 in personal property in Washington Township.[1] The next newspaper page included Hickory Township and Marietta Town as well.

This newspaper list provided several valuable clues I wish I had analyzed more thoroughly before my research trip:

• Township Organization: The list revealed that Love County was divided into named townships—Burney Township, Washington Township, Hickory Township, and Marietta “Town” (not township)—rather than just the numerical township/range system I was familiar with from the land records.
• Timeline Confirmation: The 1920 assessments confirmed both Arza and Dock were still in Love County in 1920, which aligned with the federal census taken that same year.
• Financial Context: The significant difference between Arza’s 75 assessment and Dock’s 480 assessment suggested different economic circumstances, with Dock appearing more prosperous.
• Geographic Distribution: The fact that they were assessed in different townships (Burney vs. Washington) indicated they were living in separate areas of the county by 1920.

 

One gap in my preparation was not having a clear timeline for when Dock left Love County. I knew he appeared in the 1920 Love County census, but by 1930 he was in Las Animas County, Colorado. Newspaper evidence suggested he spent time in Lubbock County, Texas during the 1920s—a 1922 article mentioned his son Bert Harris there;[2] and in 1925 Dock served as informant on his sister Devia Dove Harris’s death certificate in Lubbock County.[3] Having a more precise departure date would have helped focus my tax record search; yet the tax records are what eventually helped establish that departure date—combined with newspaper articles.

Finding the Tax Records: A Journey to the Old Jail

After lunch, I returned to the courthouse and asked about tax records. I nervously opened the door to the Treasurer’s office, where I was greeted with friendly faces who were eager to help. I learned that the historical tax books were stored in the old jail building behind the courthouse. The deputy treasurer walked me over to what had once been the county jail, now converted into storage space for various county records.

As we entered the old jail, I was immediately struck by the atmosphere. The building retained its institutional feeling, with cinderblock walls painted white and the unmistakable sense that this space had once housed prisoners. The treasurer unlocked the outer door with a key and then led me to what had been jail cells. Each cell looked like a storage room for a different county office.

When we reached the treasurer’s storage room, she unlocked the door and I was astounded to see so many old volumes lining the shelves holding tax record volumes spanning decades of Love County history. The treasurer turned to leave, and I asked if she would leave the outer door unlocked. I had the uncanny sense that I would soon be completely alone in that old jail, without a key! Once alone, I took a moment to take in my surroundings. The old volumes, though dusty, were beautiful!

The Research Environment: Challenges and Adaptations

The storage room presented several immediate challenges that I hadn’t anticipated:

• No Workspace: Unlike the county clerk’s office with its angled reading stands, the old jail had no tables or chairs. The tax volumes sat on shelves in cramped quarters with no designated research space.
• Improvised Solutions: I found a large plastic storage bin, flipped it upside down, and used it as a makeshift table while kneeling on the concrete floor. This arrangement was far from comfortable, but it allowed me to open and photograph the tax books.
• Footwear Regrets: I had worn sandals that morning, which proved impractical for kneeling on concrete in a dusty storage room. Closed-toe shoes would have been much more appropriate for this unexpected research environment.
• Technology Concerns: My phone battery was already partially drained from photographing deeds all morning. Fortunately, I had packed a phone charger with a long cord in my backpack, and I found an outlet in the hallway outside the storage area. However, frustratingly, the charger didn’t seem to work at all—perhaps the outlet wasn’t functioning properly. I put my phone on battery saver mode and tried to keep the screen off unless I was actively photographing records, carefully managing my remaining power.

 

Understanding the Tax Record Organization

The tax books presented their own organizational challenges that differed significantly from the deed indexes I’d mastered that morning:

• Multiple Volumes Per Year: Rather than one comprehensive volume per year, Love County created separate tax books for different townships within the same year. This made sense given the newspaper list I’d seen, but I hadn’t fully grasped this system before encountering it.
• Preservation Issues: Some volumes were wrapped in brown paper for protection, which meant unwrapping and rewrapping them carefully. Others showed their age with dead crickets scattered on pages and dust accumulated over decades.
• Different Organizational Systems: While land tax records were organized by township and range (similar to the deed system), personal property and poll tax records were arranged alphabetically by surname. This meant I needed to navigate multiple organizational methods within the same research session.
• Incomplete Coverage: Not all years were represented, and some volumes showed gaps in the townships covered, reflecting the evolving administrative needs of the county.

 

First Discoveries: Tracing the Harris Family Through Tax Records

Despite the challenging research conditions, I began working through the tax volumes, starting with what I expected would confirm my newspaper preparation research.

The 1920 Mystery

I searched the Marietta and Washington Township volume for 1920, expecting to find D.H. Harris with his $480 personal property assessment that I’d seen in the newspaper. Surprisingly, he wasn’t there at all![4] I did find R.L. Harris, who was listed right next to D.H. Harris in the newspaper valuation list, but no Dock Harris.[5] Perhaps he never actually paid his taxes that year, despite his personal property being officially valued and published in the paper.

Working Backward – 1916 Success

Next, I chose the 1916 volume from the shelf, figuring that would include both Dock and his father, John C. Harris (who died in 1918). In the Burney and Hickory Townships tax roll on page 21, I was thrilled to see J.C. Harris and D.H. Harris of Pike listed together, along with Lee Harris of Leon—who was a step-brother of Dock and step-son of John C. Harris.[6]

The Earliest Records – 1908

Eager to see the beginning of their time in Love County, I jumped back to the oldest tax roll from 1908. Unlike the later years, this wasn’t divided into multiple volumes by township—just one comprehensive volume covering all of Love County. In the Burney Township personal property section, which was alphabetized, I found D.H. Harris of Pike on page 53![7] Three pages later on page 56, I discovered J.C. Harris of Marietta and S.D. Harris of Jimtown.[8] S.D. Harris was almost certainly John’s brother, Sam David Harris, adding another family connection to the records.

Tracking Through the Later Years

My search through subsequent years revealed a pattern of family presence and movement:

• 1919: In the Burney and Hickory Townships roll, I found Mrs. Arza Harris of Leon on page 20,[9] and D.H. Harris of Burneyville on page 24.[10] This showed both John’s widow and son were still in the county a year after John’s death, as expected, since they were listed in the 1920 census in Love County.
• 1921: I searched the Marietta City and Washington Townships roll but couldn’t find either Arza or Dock.[11] I now realize that Arza would not be in that township, but rather the Burney Township (since she lived in Leon). However, Dock H. Harris lived in Washington Township during the 1920 census so his absence from the roll suggested that he had moved or been assessed in a different township that year.
• 1922: In the Burney and Hickory Townships volume, I found Lee Harris and T.J. Harris—both step-brothers of Dock—indicating the extended family network remained in Love County even as some members moved around. Dock Harris wasn’t listed, suggesting that rather than simply move townships within Love County, he may have actually left the county.[12]

 

The 1920 Revelation

I then discovered there was a second 1920 tax roll volume, and this one proved particularly revealing. While I didn’t find Dock on the personal property list (which included J.D. Harris, Lee Harris, S.D. Harris, and T.J. Harris, all of Leon), I made an exciting discovery about Arza Harris. In the land tax section of Burney Township, Mrs. Arza Harris was paying taxes on property described as “8 1/3 a in NE NE NW – section 8 township 7S range 1W, school district 10,” valued at $285. She had paid her taxes on December 14, 1920.[13]

This was likely the same 8.75-acre property (less 1.25 acres for Pike) that John C. Harris had purchased from E.L. Carlile in 1916, which I had found in the deed records that morning![14]

Understanding the Volume Organization

As I worked through these records, I began to understand the systematic organization. The 1920 volumes had helpful section tabs—Volume 2 included “Burney-Lands,” “Leon-Lots,” “Burneyville-Lands,” and similar geographic divisions. The other 1920 volume covering different areas had tabs for “Marietta City,” “Washington-Lands,” and “Thackerville-Lots.” This organization helped me navigate more efficiently as I continued my research.

Planning for the Next Day

As my research session in the old jail wound down, I took photographs of the bookshelves showing the volume titles and year ranges. This would help me create a more systematic research plan for my final day, ensuring I didn’t miss any crucial time periods or duplicate efforts. The visual inventory of available volumes also revealed gaps in the collection that might affect my research.

Lessons Learned and Research Insights

Reflecting on this research experience, several important lessons emerged.

Newspaper Sources vs. Actual Records

A puzzling discovery was that despite the 1920 Marietta Monitor listing D.H. Harris with $480 in personal property in Washington Township in May, he didn’t appear in that township’s tax records. At the time, this was confusing—why would his property be officially valued and published in the paper if he wasn’t going to pay taxes? Later analysis would reveal that Dock may have moved after the May newspaper publication and the summer census enumeration, possibly leaving Love County as early as late summer 1920, which would explain why he never actually paid taxes that year. This taught me that newspaper tax assessments can provide valuable timing clues about when people were still present versus when they may have departed.

Family Networks and Geographic Mobility

The tax records revealed the extended Harris family network remained active in Love County. Finding step-brothers Lee Harris and T.J. Harris in 1922 records showed that while some family members (like Dock) may have been transitioning out of the county, others maintained their presence and connections.

Property Continuity Through Widowhood

Discovering Arza Harris paying land taxes on the Pike property in 1920 provided crucial evidence of property continuity after John C. Harris’s death. The connection between her 1920 tax payment and the 1916 deed I’d found that morning demonstrated how different record types can corroborate and expand each other’s information.

Volume Organization Evolution

The difference between the single comprehensive 1908 volume and the multiple township-specific volumes of later years showed how Love County’s record-keeping evolved as the county grew and administrative needs became more complex.

Technology Backup Plans

Even when you bring backup solutions (like my phone charger), they don’t always work as expected. The faulty outlet taught me to have multiple backup plans for technology issues during extended research sessions.

Areas for Better Preparation

While the research was ultimately successful, several areas could have been better prepared:

• Township Mapping: I should have located or created a map showing Love County’s named townships (Burney, Washington, Hickory) and how they corresponded to the numerical township/range system. This would have helped me understand the geographic relationships between different family members’ assessments and movements.
• Deeper Analysis of Preparation Materials: The 1920 newspaper tax list contained more organizational information than I initially realized. A more thorough analysis would have revealed the township naming system and helped me better understand what to expect in the tax books.
• Physical Preparation: Bringing a portable cushion, wearing appropriate shoes, and having backup charging options would have made the research process more comfortable and sustainable.
• Systematic Research Planning: With challenging working conditions, I should have developed a more systematic approach to which tax years and record types were most crucial to my research objective, rather than jumping between years somewhat randomly. However, I knew I could come back the next day, and I could be more systematic after reviewing my day 1 finds.

 

The Value of Persistence in Challenging Conditions

Despite the uncomfortable working conditions and organizational challenges, the tax records provided valuable information that wasn’t available anywhere else. They offered a year-by-year view of the Harris family’s economic status, confirmed their presence in specific townships, and helped establish timelines for their activities in Love County.

The experience reinforced an important principle: genealogical treasures don’t always come in comfortable packages. Some of our most valuable discoveries require us to adapt to less-than-ideal research conditions, whether that means kneeling on jail floors or squinting at faded handwriting in poorly lit storage rooms.

Building Relationships and Showing Appreciation

Throughout this unconventional research experience, the treasurer’s office staff were incredibly helpful. They trusted me with access to their storage area, allowed me to work independently, and showed genuine interest in my research. This positive relationship proved valuable—they talked with me about their family connections to the Harrises and seemed genuinely pleased to see these historical records being put to good use.

Building these relationships is crucial for onsite research success. Repository staff often have knowledge about their collections that isn’t available in catalogs or online resources, and they may be willing to go the extra mile for researchers who show respect for their materials and appreciation for their assistance.

Preparing for the Next Day

As my phone battery reached critical levels and the treasurer’s office prepared to close, I wrapped up my tax record research with complete delight and amazement at what I had found. I had found valuable information that filled important gaps in my Harris family timeline, but I knew there was much more to discover with better preparation and more time.

That evening, I made notes about what I’d learned and began planning for my final two days at Love County. I had two more days to dive deeper into the records I’d discovered and explore the Love County Historical Society museum, Burneyville and Leon Cemeteries, and any other records in the courthouse.

Tips and Takeaways

Here are some tips and takeaways from my visit. Although each courthouse and archives facility is different, hopefully my experience can help you plan and think about what you might need to bring to be an ultra-prepared genealogist!

Before Your Visit

• Map township systems: Research both numerical (township/range) and named township systems for your area
• Analyze preparation materials thoroughly: Newspaper tax lists, directories, and other sources often contain more organizational clues than initially apparent, but remember they may not perfectly match actual records
• Plan for physical conditions: Ask about workspace availability and come prepared with portable solutions
• Bring comfort items: Portable cushions, kneepads, or small stools can make floor-level research possible
• Bring multiple backup power solutions: Portable phone chargers, extra batteries, and backup documentation methods—outlets may not always work
• Wear appropriate clothing: Closed-toe shoes and comfortable clothes suitable for various research environments
• Pack appropriate tools: Flashlights for dark storage areas, paper and/or laptops for note-taking
• Plan for preservation needs: Be prepared to handle wrapped or fragile materials appropriately

 

During Your Research

• Understand multiple organizational systems: Tax records may use different arrangements for different record types
• Document preservation issues: Note wrapped volumes, damaged pages, or missing years that might affect future research
• Build relationships with staff: Show appreciation for access to unique storage areas and ask about other available resources
• Prioritize based on conditions: If working with limited battery or time, focus on the most crucial records first
• Be flexible with workspace: Bring or improvise solutions for less-than-ideal research conditions

 

Documentation and Follow-up

• Record negative results: Note which years, townships, or record types you searched without results, including discrepancies between published sources and actual records.
• Plan return visits: Challenging conditions might require multiple shorter sessions rather than one comprehensive day
• Document available resources: Photograph bookshelves and volume titles to create systematic research plans for future visits
• Cross-reference record types: Use tax records to verify and expand information found in deeds, probate records, and other sources

 

The old Love County jail may not have been the most comfortable research environment, but it was thrilling to conduct genealogical research in such a unique setting. The historic environment lent an air of excitement to the endeavor despite feeling a little spooky, and it housed treasures that helped complete my understanding of the Harris family’s economic and geographic story during their time in Oklahoma.

In my next post, I’ll share the discoveries from my final two days at Love County, including how I built on the foundation of deeds and tax records to uncover even more family connections and stories.

AI Disclosure

AI wrote most of the sentences, while I provided the details and data. I used Claude’s Project feature to incorporate information from the previous posts in this series.

Sources

[1] “Taxation in 1920,” The Marietta [Oklahoma] Monitor, 28 May 1920, p. 7, col. 6; image, Newspapers.com (https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-marietta-monitor-taxation-in-1920/136441603/ : accessed 7 December 2023).

[2] “Carlisle News Items of the Past Week,” The Lubbock [Texas] Avalanche, 28 July 1922, p. 10, col. 3, para. 2; image, NewspaperArchive (https://newspaperarchive.com : accessed 6 May 2024).

[3] Texas, Standard Certificate of Death, no. 6182 (1925), Dovie Harris; image, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:33SQ-GY1M-99LB : accessed 25 April 2024). The informant was D.H. Harris.

[4] Love County, Oklahoma, Tax Roll, 1920, Burney Township, Marietta City, and Washington Townships, negative search for Dock H. Harris; Treasurer’s Office, Marietta.

[5] Love County Treasurer, 1920 Tax Roll, Marietta and Washington Twps, personal property tax list, p. 147, R.L. Harris; Treasurer’s Office, Marietta.

[6] Love County, Oklahoma, Tax Roll, 1916, Burney Township, p. 12, personal property, D.H. Harris and J.C. Harris; Treasurer’s Office, Marietta.

[7] Love County, Oklahoma, Tax Roll, 1908, Burney Township, p. 53, personal property, D.H. Harris; Treasurer’s Office, Marietta.

[8] Love County, Oklahoma, Tax Roll, 1908, Burney Township, p. 56, personal property, J.C. Harris; Treasurer’s Office, Marietta.

[9] Love County, Oklahoma, Tax Roll, 1919, Burney Township, personal property, p. 20, Mrs. Arza Harris; Treasurer’s Office, Marietta.

[10] Love County, Oklahoma, Tax Roll, 1919, Burney Township, personal property, p. 24, D.H. Harris; Treasurer’s Office, Marietta.

[11] Love County, Oklahoma, Tax Roll, 1921, Marietta City and Washington Township, negative search for Dock H. Harris; Treasurer’s Office, Marietta.

[12] Love County, Oklahoma, Tax Roll, 1922, Burney and Hickory Townships, negative search for Dock H. Harris; Treasurer’s Office, Marietta.

[13] Love County, Oklahoma, Tax Roll, 1920, Burney Township, vol. 2, real estate, p. 72, Mrs. Arza Harris; Treasurer’s Office, Marietta.

[14] Love County, Oklahoma, Deeds 11:189, E.L. and Georgia Ethel Carlile to J.C. and Arza Z. Harris, 13 Sep 1916; Love County Clerk’s Office, Marietta.