not always how, the remedy for such evils; but we are seldom willing to
wait for such a cure.

As before intimated parents are sometimes guilty of this offence, and
thus place upon a child a stigma that will follow it through life. A
little care on their part will remedy the evil, to that extent, and they
surely should be willing to do their share in the work. Teachers and
those who have the charge of the young are sometimes thoughtless enough
to commit the same fault. Should it not be crime? For they have no right
to be thus inconsiderate, when a little restraint upon their part will
prevent the wrong as far as they are concerned. With these two
influences setting in the right direction, added to that of the thinking
community, a current may very likely be formed that shall obliterate
wholly the custom and deliver us from its attendant difficulties.

Another practice now quite common, and one which bids fair to create
much confusion, is that which permits the wife to take the Christian
name of her husband: for instance, Mrs. Mary, wife of John Smith, signs
her name Mrs. John Smith, a name which has no legal existence, which she
is entitled to use only by courtesy, and which should be allowed in
none but necessary cases to distinguish her from some other bearing the
same name, or to address her when her own Christian name is not known.
Mrs. is but a general title to designate the class of persons to which
she belongs, and not a name, any more than Mr. or Esq. Who ever knew a
man to sign his name Mr. so and so, or so and so, Esq.?

To show the absurdity and impropriety of this misuse of the name it will
be needful to mention but a single illustration. Suppose a note or check
is made payable to Mrs. John Smith. Mrs. being only a title, and no part
of the name, the endorsement would be plain John Smith, and nobody, not