“But as time wore on, and I became inevitably better and better acquainted with her, I found myself drawn, almost irresistibly, into the general current.  I found that her faults and weaknesses were all superficial and obvious to the most casual, if undazzled, observer.  They rather dwindled than expanded upon a fuller knowledge; or rather, took on new and brighter aspects in the light of her radiant and lofty soul.  I learned to know her as a most fearless and unselfish champion of Truth and Human Good at all hazards, ready to be their standard-bearer through danger and obloquy, and, if need be, their martyr.  I think few have more keenly appreciated the material goods of life,—­Rank, Riches, Power, Luxury, Enjoyment; but I know none who would have more cheerfully surrendered them all, if the well-being of our Race could thereby have been promoted.  I have never met another in whom the inspiring hope of Immortality was so strengthened into profoundest conviction.  She did not believe in our future and unending existence,—­she knew it, and lived ever in the broad glare of its morning twilight.  With a limited income and liberal wants, she was yet generous beyond the bounds of reason.  Had the gold of California been all her own, she would have disbursed nine tenths of it in eager and well-directed efforts to stay, or at least diminish, the flood of human misery.  And it is but fair to state, that the liberality she evinced was fully paralleled by the liberality she experienced at the hands of others.  Had she needed thousands, and made her wants known, she had friends who would have cheerfully supplied her.  I think few persons, in their pecuniary dealings, have experienced and evinced more of the better qualities of human nature than Margaret Fuller.  She seemed to inspire those who approached her with that generosity which was a part of her nature.

“Of her writings I do not purpose to speak critically.  I think most of her contributions to the Tribune, while she remained with us, were characterized by a directness, terseness, and practicality, which are wanting in some of her earlier productions.  Good judges have confirmed my own opinion, that, while her essays in the Dial are more elaborate and ambitious, her reviews in the Tribune are far better adapted to win the favor and sway the judgment of the great majority of readers.  But, one characteristic of her writings I feel bound to commend,—­their absolute truthfulness.  She never asked how this would sound, nor whether that would do, nor what would be the effect of saying anything; but simply, ’Is it the truth?  Is it such as the public should know?’ And if her judgment answered, ‘Yes,’ she uttered it; no matter what turmoil it might excite, nor what odium it might draw down on her own head.  Perfect conscientiousness was an unfailing characteristic of her literary efforts.  Even the severest of her critiques,—­that