Another instance of the viciousness of the contract system was that it kept the prisoner confined long after his sentence expired. There were a certain number of days allowed off a sentence for good behavior. Each prisoner was an asset to the contractor. It was a question of dollars and cents with him. If the man nearing the completion of the sentence happened to fall short of his task or to transgress one of the many rules of the institution, time would be added to his sentence. That is, a part of his good time. In my confinement of over seven years I found it a rare occasion for any man to be turned out at the completion of his good time. Of course this but put into the minds of the prisoners the thought that the prison was run for the special benefit of the prison contractor. I know absolutely that a contractor asked the warden to hold a certain man beyond his good time, and the warden did it. You may say that such an instance would not happen with every warden. It is not the fact that it happens that makes the system so outrageous, but the fact that it can happen. The physician of this prison for seventeen years had trouble with the warden about excusing men unable to perform their work. The warden wanted them in their shops; he said that what they needed was not so much a doctor as a club. The physician, supposing that he knew his calling, disagreed with the warden and brought the matter to the attention of the Board of Directors. The Board sided with the warden, and the physician lost his place. This man then went before the State medical board and charged the warden with no less than murder. The press of the State, instead of demanding an investigation, almost without exception characterized the charge as absurd. They charged, and perhaps charged rightly, that if such abuses existed in a prison in the time of this incumbency, it was his duty to begin to inform the people at that time, not to wait till he had been ousted from his place, to begin. Some few months after this incident a man was appointed as guard from one of the southern counties. On his first day of work he was directed by the warden to string up a prisoner for some minor infraction of the rules. He refused. Another guard willingly did the work, the former guard witnessing the punishment. The sight of the brutality so sickened him that he then and there handed in his resignation. He informed one of the papers of the city in which the prison was situated, and this paper began a quiet investigation of the fact. Numerous discharged prisoners told of their experiences, former guards supplemented this testimony. The press of the State took notice, some of them demanding an investigation from the governor. In the meantime the Board of Directors of the prison met and exonerated the warden of all the charges laid against him. Finally the governor did appoint a commission to investigate and they began work immediately.