The first debate in which Mr. Buchanan took part related to a bill, introduced by General Smith of Maryland, making appropriations for the Military Establishment. This discussion, which took place on the 9th and 11th of January, 1822, was an excited one, from the inner motive of the opposition to the bill, which was aimed at the supposed aspirations of Mr. Calhoun, the Secretary of War. In reference to the Secretary Mr. Buchanan said: “I have no feeling of partiality for the Secretary of War, nor of prejudice against him. I view him merely as a public character, and, in that capacity, I conscientiously believe that he has done his duty.” After a sharp reply from Mr. Randolph, the bill was passed by a very large majority, the members of the so-called “Radical” party alone voting against it. There very soon occurred another debate which is of greater importance, since it marks the direction which Mr. Buchanan’s mind was beginning to take on the subject of Federal powers and State Rights. This was the occasion of the introduction of a Bankrupt bill. Prior to this time, Congress had but once exercised the constitutional power “to establish uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States.” This was in the Bankrupt law of 1800, which was repealed in 1804. Of the power of Congress to legislate on the subject of “bankruptcy” there can of course be no doubt, since it is expressly conferred. But there has always been a doubt respecting the true construction of the terms “bankruptcy” and “bankrupt.” Following the English system, the Act of 1800 rejected the idea that these terms include all “insolvents,” of all occupations, and confined the meaning to “traders,” or mercantile insolvents. Here, therefore, was one very serious question in interpretation to be encountered; for although the measure, of which some account is now to be given, contemplated, as it was first introduced, none but commercial insolvents, it finally turned upon an amendment which would have made it applicable to all classes of insolvent debtors. In either aspect, too, it brought into view the contrasted functions of the Federal and the State courts, in the enforcement and collection of private debts.