Summary

Joseph P. Bradley United States v. Lynde — Opinion of the Court

Nothing has been developed in the case which goes to assail to bon a fides of the transaction, unless it be the fact of obtaining the grant from Morales (who was Lynde's father-in-law) after the treaty of cession, and when it was known that the United States claimed the territory. But as this can be said of all these grants, and was one of the considerations that must have been patent to the mind of Congress when it enacted the law of 1860, we must presume that it was waived by that body, and has ceased to be a valid ground of objection.
Source: Wikisource

Joseph P. Bradley United States v. Lynde — Opinion of the Court

Notwithstanding this refusal of Spain to deliver up West Florida, the United States, through the executive and legislative departments of the government, always claimed that it was covered by the two treaties of cession, and insisted that it rightfully belonged to them, though no demonstrations were made to dispossess the Spanish authorities until 1810, when President Madison issued a proclamation directing that possession should be taken, but at the same time declared that the right thereto should remain, as it had continued, a subject for amicable negotiation with the Spanish government.
Source: Wikisource

Joseph P. Bradley United States v. Lynde — Opinion of the Court

It is obvious that one nation cannot grant away the territory of another.'
'In the case before us the grant is invalid from an intrinsic defect in the title of Spain. It is true she still claimed the country, and refused to deliver it to the United States. But her conduct was, in this respect, a violation of the rights of the United States and of the obligation of treaties.'
The court relied on the act of 1804 as giving notice of the determination of the United States to claim the territory and to ignore any grants made therein, except to actual settlers.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature