Hold their place in the front rank of the publications to which they belong.--_Boston Journal_, Feb. 19, 1896. HARPER'S PERIODICALS MAGAZINE, $4.00 a Year WEEKLY, $4.00 a Year BAZAR, $4.00 a Year ROUND TABLE, $2.00 a Year JOSEPH GILLOTT'S STEEL PENS. GOLD MEDAL, PARIS EXPOSITION, 1889, AND THE CHICAGO EXPOSITION AWARD. THE MOST PERFECT OF PENS. [Illustration: PISO'S CURE FOR CONSUMPTION] CURES WHERE ALL ELSE FAILS. Best Cough Syrup. Tastes Good. Use in time. Sold by druggists. QUESTIONS FOR YOUNG MEN. There was, a few years ago, a law in Connecticut and Massachusetts--and I think it is still extant in Connecticut--that no man shall kiss his wife in public. Both States have laws, as have many others, that no man shall swear; and they both had laws, if they do not still have them, that no one shall smoke on the street. It has always been considered an immoral act for a Christian to swear, but there is unquestionably a distinction to be made which is of just as much interest to the average boy as to any full-grown man. The use of sacred names in common every-day language--that is, the colloquial use of terms that represent what we reverence, what are the property of each man for himself, and his deepest thoughts--is undoubtedly a wrong. The name of God and what it represents to you and to me in our lives belongs to us, and does not concern any one else. No one, therefore, has any right to vulgarize it in our presence, and if he does so, he is infringing on sacred personal rights, and is therefore committing a wrong. That is self-evident. There is, however, a difference between committing this actual wrong, between breaking the sturdy old New England Puritan law, and using exaggerated terms which are just as much swearing as the use of sacred names is. There are many terms which in themselves have to-day no significance--though they may have in derivation--except as exaggerated expression. One says, "Good gracious!" "Oh dear!" "Oh my!" a dozen times an hour, and is never criticised for swearing. Yet these expressions in their original forms were swearing of the most exaggerated kind, and in principle are so to-day. They all originally had the name of the Deity attached to them, the second one being probably a corruption of French "Oh Dieu!" The important point is that although they no longer infringe on sacred things and personal rights, they are really just as much swearing to-day as they originally were. They are signs of weakness, of a desire for something stronger in the form of expression than the ordinary English phrase which precedes or follows them. The speaker feels the need of some exaggeration, and these inoffensive terms are just as unnecessary as are the offensive ones--indeed, they are only weak subterfuges which try to get the same effect without using the sacred terms.