While already articulated in other ways, and the subject of a prior war, German Chancellor Bernhard Heinrich Karl Martin, Prince of Bülow announced the doctrine of Nibelungentreue, that being that the German and Austrian empires were united by their common language and heritage.
It really meant more than that.
Individual nationalism was rising in this era in any event, with Austria struggling against it. Imperial Germany seemingly was a nation state, but only because it had suppressed the numerous nationalities, some large and some small, living within its borders. Unlike the Austro-Hungarian Empire, which acknowledged its polyglot nature while being principally of one faith, Imperial Germany, which included those of Westphalian, Dutch Dane, Swabian, French, and Polish nationalities, was a Prussian Empire which imposed, or tried to impose, its concept of a "German" nationalism upon its distinct regions which varied in faith. Seemingly settled in the Franco Prussian War, as late as 1909 the reluctant acceptance of Prussian dominance still was unsettled.
Nibelungentreue would give rise to militant, and malevolent, German nationalism by 1914, which would have disastrous consequences in the 1930s and 1940s. Germany as a state, however, was already accepted, even though even to this day some regions of Germany would make as much sense in a neighboring country as they do in Germany.
Cordell Hull had something else on his mind, which he discussed in a speech on this day:
I desire in this connection to direct the attention of the House to the best, the fairest, the most equitable system of taxation that has yet been devised—the taxation of incomes. Adam Smith, the father of political economy, laid down this rule of taxation:
The subjects of every State ought to contribute toward the support of the Government as nearly as possible in proportion to their respective abilities—that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the States. . . .
I have no disposition to tax wealth unnecessarily or unjustly, but I do believe that the wealth of the country should bear its just share of the burden of taxation and that it should not be permitted to shirk that duty. Anyone at all familiar with the legislative history of the Nation must admit that the chief burdens of the government have long been borne by those least able to bear them, while accumulated wealth has enjoyed the protection and other blessings of the Government and thus far escaped most of its accompanying burdens. . . .
Heretofore any suggestion from this side of the House that our system of taxation should be so adjusted as to require the aggregated wealth of the country to bear a fair share of the burden of taxation has usually met the disapproval of the other side upon the ground that such course would be socialistic, if not unconstitutional. . . .
I agree that Members of Congress are under oath to support the Constitution, and that it is the duty of the Supreme Court, under proper circumstances, to construe and expound that instrument; but I submit that where, in the judgment of Members of Congress, a palpably erroneous decision has been rendered by the Supreme Court, stripping the coordinate legislative branch of the Government of one of its strong arms of power and duty—a decision overturning a line of decisions extending over a hundred years of the Nation’s history . . . . It is entirely proper that Congress should pass another income-tax act, again raising the important questions deemed to have been erroneously decided by the Supreme Court heretofore, and by this course secure a rehearing upon these controverted questions. . . .
The world has never seen such colossal fortunes as we behold in the present age. Their owners are richly able to pay taxes. Why does the Government, founded as it was upon the doctrine of equality, persist in taxing every article of necessity which the poor widow must buy, while it permits citizens residing in other countries to hold property here of probably $100,000,000 in value on which the Government declines to levy even a single cent of tax? . . . Public sentiment is becoming aroused. The American people are loudly, insistently demanding that this infamous system of class legislation shall cease, and unless this Congress regards their wishes they will soon compel compliance, even if they have to resort to a renovated Congress.
Last prior edition:
