The 2005 Supreme Court case Sherrill, New York  v. Oneida Nation of New York involved interpretation of the 1790 Act that shares its name with this better-known one, which the San Pedro was accused of violating in an 1817 Supreme Court case. Sections 3 and 4 of that Act set the date at which it went into effect as May 20, while Section 2 gave the penalty for violating it as a fine of between one hundred and ten thousand dollars and a jail sentence of between one month and one year. The second of three Acts passed in response to the Berlin and Milan decrees and the Orders of Council, it was designed to alleviate economic problems caused by the passage of the Embargo Act. FTP, identify this law succeeded by Macon's Bill No. 2; an 1809 act tha
The 2005 Supreme Court case Sherrill, New York  v. Oneida Nation of New York involved interpretation of the 1790 Act that shares its name with this better-known one, which the San Pedro was accused of violating in an 1817 Supreme Court case. Sections 3 and 4 of that Act set the date at which it went into effect as May 20, while Section 2 gave the penalty for violating it as a fine of between one hundred and ten thousand dollars and a jail sentence of between one month and one year. The second of three Acts passed in response to the Berlin and Milan decrees and the Orders of Council, it was designed to alleviate economic problems caused by the passage of the Embargo Act. FTP, identify this law succeeded by Macon's Bill No. 2; an 1809 act that restricted trade with Britain and France.
The 2005 Supreme Court case Sherrill, New York  v. Oneida Nation of New York involved interpretation of the 1790 Act that shares its name with this better-known one, which the San Pedro was accused of violating in an 1817 Supreme Court case.
Non-Intercourse Act (accept Indian Non-Intercourse Act before San Pedro)