As will be readily seen, the evil resulting from this custom is wide spread and alarming.  It would also seem to be almost without remedy, since it is the result of irresponsible action, committed by persons who are not fully aware of what they are doing, by those who are indifferent, as to what may follow, or by those who are actuated by malice; against these there is no law except the steady, persistent movement of the thinking public setting its face squarely against the practice, with the passage of time, which usually brings about, we know 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 even his wife, has any right to forge his signature.  An instrument thus drawn is a mistake, since no one can be authorized to execute it.

The trouble to the genealogist and historian is of a somewhat different nature, since he merely desires to identify the individual and cares nothing about the money value of the document.  Much the safer and better way is for the wife always to sign and use her proper name and to add, if she thinks it necessary to be more explicit, “wife of,” using her husband’s name.  By doing this a vast deal of perplexity would be avoided, and sometimes a serious legal difficulty.