It has been held in an unbroken line of cases that the grant to the United States of admiralty jurisdiction does not, in itself, carry with it any general or political jurisdiction. That is to say, unless Congress has expressly so legislated, the state courts still have exclusive cognizance of crimes committed upon their navigable waters, and upon the sea within a marine league of the shore. In the leading case of United States v. Bevans9 Marshall points out that the delegation to the federal judiciary carries with it, indeed, a legislative power to render that jurisdiction effective, but it does not operate to take the navigable and territorial waters of a State from without the general jurisdiction of the State in the sense that districts purchased by the Federal Government, with the consent of the legislature of a State, for the erection of forts, arsenals, etc., are so removed. In his opinion Marshall says: "In describing the judicial power the framers of our Constitution had not in view any cession of territory; or, which is essentially the same, of general jurisdiction: It is not questioned, that whatever may be necessary to the full and unlimited exercise of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction is in the government of the Union. Congress may pass all laws which are necessary and proper for giving the most complete effect to this power. Still the general jurisdiction over the place, subject to this grant of power, adheres to the territory, as a part of sovereignty not yet given away. The residuary powers of legislation are still in Massachusetts." 10