these stamps, and as a Federal Officer, I took possession of what I found, and those found by the State Officer, and have had them in my possession ever since and receipted to the Police officers at the Station that evening after the return from the raid, for the stamps found."

While it is true that the mere participation in a state search of one who is a federal officer does not render it a federal undertaking, the court must be vigilant to scrutinize the attendant facts with an eye to detect and a hand to prevent violations of the Constitution by circuitous and indirect methods. Constitutional provisions for the security of person and property are to be liberally construed, and "it is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon." Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 635; Gouled v. United States, supra, p. 304.

The attendant facts here reasonably suggest that the federal prohibition agent was not invited to join the state squad as a private person might have been, but was asked to participate and did participate as a federal enforcement officer, upon the chance, which was subsequently realized, that something would be disclosed of official interest to him as such agent. The house to be searched contained only four rooms-a dining room, a kitchen and two bedrooms. We are not prepared to accept the view that the local officer thought a force of four men would be insufficient to search these limited premises; and it is significant, in that connection, that he did not ask his superior officer for additional help, but inquired particularly for Adams, who, he knew, was the federal agent. The stamps found were not within the purview of the state search warrant, nor did they relate in any way to a violation of state law. Those found by the agent were held by him as of right and without question; those found by the state officer were considered by both the local officer

28

Opinion of the Court.

in charge and the federal agent as things which concerned the federal government alone and then and there were surrendered to the exclusive possession of the federal agent, a practical concession that he was present in his federal character. We cannot avoid the conclusion that the participation of the agent in the search was under color of his federal office and that the search in substance and effect was a joint operation of the local and federal officers. In that view, so far as this inquiry is concerned, the effect is the same as though he had engaged in the undertaking as one exclusively his own. Similar questions have been presented in a variety of forms to the lower federal courts, but nothing is to be gained by attempting to review the decisions, since each of them rests, as the present case does, upon its own peculiar facts. But see and compare Flagg v. United States, 233 Fed. 481, 483; United States v. Slusser, 270 Fed. 818, 820; United States v. Falloco, 277 Fed. 75, 82; Legman v. United States, 295 Fed. 474, 476-478; Marron v. United States, 8 F. (2d) 251, 259; United States v. Brown, 8 F. (2d) 630, 631.

We do not question the right of the federal government to avail itself of evidence improperly seized by state officers operating entirely upon their own account. But the rule is otherwise when the federal government itself, through its agents acting as such, participates in the wrongful search and seizure. To hold the contrary would be to disregard the plain spirit and purpose of the constitutional prohibitions intended to secure the people against unauthorized official action. The Fourth Amendment was adopted in view of long misuse of power in the matter of searches and seizures both in England and the colonies; and the assurance against any revival of it, so carefully embodied in the fundamental law, is not to be impaired by judicial sanction of equivocal methods,

which, regarded superficially, may seem to escape the challenge of illegality but which, in reality, strike at the substance of the constitutional right.

Judgment reversed.

DI SANTO v. PENNSYLVANIA.

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF

PENNSYLVANIA.

No. 288. Argued October 27, 1926.-Decided January 3, 1927.

A state law requiring persons, other than railroad or steamship companies, who engage within the State in the sale of steamship tickets or orders for transportation to or from foreign countries, to procure a license, by giving proof of moral character, paying a small annual fee, and filing a bond as security against fraud or misrepresentation to purchasers, is a direct burden on foreign commerce, contravening the commerce clause of the Constitution, and cannot be sustained as a proper exercise of the state police power to prevent possible fraud. P. 35.

So held as applied to one who was authorized by four steamship companies to sell their tickets at a specified place and who was supplied by them with tickets, advertising matter, schedules of sailings, and other information, and authorized by them to collect the money for the tickets sold and required to give bonds to the respective companies and to account to each for moneys received for its tickets, less a percentage for his remuneration.

285 Pa. 1, reversed.

ERROR to a judgment of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, sustaining a conviction of Di Santo, for selling steamship tickets without first having procured a license as required by a law of that State.

Messrs. William H. Neely and John H. Neely, Jr., for the plaintiff in error.

Messrs. Philip S. Moyer and E. Le Roy Keen, with whom Mr. George W. Woodruff, Attorney General of Pennsylvania, was on the brief, for the defendant in error.

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER delivered the opinion of the Court.

Plaintiff in error was indicted in the Court of Quarter Sessions of Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, for a violation of an Act of the Legislature of July 17, 1919, as amended by the Act of May 20, 1921, P. L. 997, requiring licenses to sell steamship tickets or orders for transportation to or from foreign countries. The indictment alleged that, December 14, 1921, without having obtained a license so to do, plaintiff in error held himself out as authorized to sell tickets and orders for transportation as agent of certain steamship companies, and that he engaged in the sale of such tickets. There was no controversy as to the facts; and, by direction of the court, the jury returned a verdict of guilty. Plaintiff in error, by motion in arrest of judgment, challenged the validity of the Act on the ground that it contravenes the commerce clause of the Federal Constitution. The court held the statute valid, and sentenced him to pay a fine. On appeal the Superior Court held the Act unconstitutional and reversed the judgment. The Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court and reinstated the judgment of the trial court. The case is here under § 237 (a) of the Judicial Code.

The Act of 1921 provides that no person or corporation, other than a railroad or steamship company, shall engage within the State in the sale of steamship tickets or orders for transportation or shall hold himself out as authorized to sell such tickets or orders without having first procured a license. It requires every applicant to cause his application to be advertised in specified publications, to furnish proof that he is of good moral character and fit to conduct the business, to give a list of the steamship lines, not less than three, for which he is agent, and to file a bond in the penal sum of $1,000 conditioned that he will account to all interested persons for moneys received for tickets and orders and that he will not be guilty

of any fraud or misrepresentation to purchasers. The license is granted on approval of the Commissioner of Banking and payment of a fee of $50.00, and may be renewed on payment of a like fee annually. The license may be revoked for fraud, misrepresentation, or failure to account. Any person carrying on this business without license is declared guilty of a misdemeanor and liable to fine or imprisonment or. both. The state Supreme Court declared that the Act is one to prevent fraud; and held that it does not require an agent or servant of the steamship companies to have a license, but that plaintiff is not such an agent, and that he occupies a position in the nature of an independent contractor, and is required to obtain a license.

Plaintiff represented four steamship companies operating steamships between the United States and Europe. Each of them gave him a certificate authorizing him to sell, at a specified place in Harrisburg, tickets and orders for transportation entitling persons therein named to passage on such steamships; and required the certificate to be posted in his office. This is in accordance with the Pennsylvania Act of 1863, P. L. 582, regulating the display of certificates by steamship agents; and a copy of that Act was printed on the certificate. The companies furnished plaintiff in error books of tickets having stubs on which to make record of tickets sold, advertising matter to be used by him, schedules of sailings, notices of cancelations of sailings, and information as to the immigration and customs services; and they authorized him to collect money for tickets sold. He usually received 25 per cent. of the price when applications were made for the tickets. He gave each company a bond to account; and transmitted immediately to his respective principals the amounts received by him.

The soliciting of passengers and the sale of steamship tickets and orders for passage between the United States