The duties of the chaplain consisted of opening and reading the letters sent and received by the prisoners, and preaching and praying on Sundays. We think the Master paid scant attention to _his_ prayers. The personality of the warden had contaminated the characters of his underlings with few exceptions. The guards were unsuited to their positions and held them only by reason of political influence. Like a flower standing amid a great expanse of tares and thistles stood one man in this institution. He held at that time the position of assistant warden, and I ever found him square and decent. It was due to him in no small measure when the prisoners enjoyed any privileges. He leaned ever on the side of the man, always human and ready to do a favor. CHAPTER XVIII CONTRACT LABOR The question of what to do with the prisoner during the period of his confinement has always been a difficult one. The system of leasing the labor of the prisoner to the highest bidder, up to a few years ago, was common in the different States. It was an easy solution to an intricate problem, and the State, looking only at the present, gave its assent to the method. It is a system particularly slavish in its workings, dehumanizing to the men working under it, and the source of most of the brutality found in penal institutions. In the prison where I was, the contractor paid the large sum of fifty-five cents for the labor of each man per day. This sum included rent, heat, power, and insurance on the building. The product turned out entered into competition with the product of free labor, having the tendency to lower the price of the competing article, and, in turn, lowering the wage of the free laborer. All this is done not for the good of society at large, but for the particular aggrandizement of a few individuals. These individuals, in most cases, come into the State from the outside; they pay no taxes and bring into the State no assets beneficial to the people at large. They engage this contract labor at insignificant prices, and force the product of this labor on the free market. This in itself is unfair to the employer of free labor who brings into the State assets beneficial to all. The latter pays taxes and contributes toward the upkeep of the State. His manufactory attracts laborers who eventually become citizens. His weekly pay roll spreads and makes itself felt among numerous businesses, which in turn also contribute toward the support of the State and city. On the face of it, is it not manifestly unfair to the employer of free men to be forced to compete with the product of the prison contractor?