*35 Mr. Justice BUTLER delivered the opinion of the Court.

Plaintiff in error was indicted in the court of quarter sessions of Deuphin county, Pennsylvania, for a violation of an Act of the Legislature of July 17, 1919 (P. L. 1003) as amended by the Act of May 20, 1921 (P. L. 997; Pa. St. Supp. 1924, s 20197), 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 steampship 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 to 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 **268 case is here under section 237(a) of the Judicial Code (Comp. St. s 1214).

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 *36 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, 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; Pa. St. 1920, ss 18643-18648) 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 cancellations 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.

[1][2][3] The soliciting of passengers and the sale of steamship tickets and orders for passage between the United States *37 and Europe constitute a well-recognized part of foreign commerce. See Davis v. Farmers' Co-operative Co., 262 U. S. 312, 315, 43 S. Ct. 556, 67 L. Ed. 996. A state statute which by its necessary operation directly interferes with or burdens foreign commerce is a prohibited regulation and invalid, regardless of the purpose with which it was passed. Shafer v. Farmers' Grain Co., 268 U. S. 189, 199, 45 S. Ct. 481, 69 L. Ed. 909, and cases cited. Such legislation cannot be sustained as an exertion of the police power of the state to prevent possible fraud. Real Silk Mills v. Portland, 268 U. S. 325, 336, 45 S. Ct. 525, 69 L. Ed. 982. The Congress has complete and paramount authority to regulate foreign commerce and, by appropriate measures, to protect the public against the frauds of those who sell these tickets and orders. The sales here in question are related to foreign commerce as directly as are sales made in ticket offices maintained by the carriers and operated by their servants and employees. The license free and other things imposed by the act on plaintiff in error, who initiates for his principals a transaction in foreign commerce, constitute a direct burden on that commerce. This case is controlled by Texas Transport Co. v. New Orleans, 264 U. S. 150, 44 S. Ct. 242, 68 L. Ed. 611, 34 A. R. L. 907, and McCall v. California, 136 U. S. 104, 10 S. Ct. 881, 34 L. Ed. 391.

Judgment reversed.

Mr. Justice BRANDEIS, with whom Mr. Justice HOLMES concurs, dissenting.

The statute is an exertion of the police power of the state. Its evident purpose is to prevent a particular species of fraud and imposition found to have been practiced in Pennsylvania upon persons of small means, unfamiliar with our language and institutions.FN1 Much of the *38 immigration into the United States is effected by arrangements made here for remittance of the means of travel. The individual immigrant is often an advance . After gaining a foothold here, he has his wife and children, aged parents, brothers, sisters or other relatives follow. To this end he remits steamship tickets or orders for transportation. The purchase of the tickets involves trust in the dealer. This is so not only because of the nature of the transaction, but also because a purchaser when unable to pay the whole price at one time makes successive deposits on account, the ticket or order not being delivered until full payment is made. The facilities for remitting both cash and steamship tickets are **269 commonly furnished by private bankers of the same nationality as the immigrant. It was natural that the supervision of persons engaged in the business of supplying steamship tickets should be committed by the statute to the commissioner of banking.FN2

FN1 A similar statute had been enacted in New York, with the approval of Gov. (afterwards Mr. Justice) Charles E. Hughes. Laws of New York 1910, c. 349, amended by Laws of New York 1911, c. 578. And similar laws have been enacted also in other states. Indiana, Burns' Ann. Stat. 1926, ss 4681-4885; Michigan, Cahill's Comp. Laws Mich. Ann. Supp. 1922, ss 7164(1)-7164(9); Ohio Gen. Code, ss 710-183 to 710-187.

FN2 In 1910 there were 410 of such banking businesses in Pennsylvania. Report of Immigration Commission, vol. 37, p. 209. The commission found, also, that of the businesses (in Pennsylvania and elsewhere) examined by it, ‘94 per cent. of the concerns engaged in the business of selling steamship tickets were at the same time engaged in the business of immigrant banking. This shows that the relation between the two is so close as to warrant the classification of them as interdependent. * * * Having made the start, it is natural that he should continue to leave with the agent for safe-keeping his weekly or monthly surplus, so that he may accumulate a sufficient amount for another remittance or for the purpose of buying a steamship ticket to bring his family to this country or for his own return to Europe.’ Id. p. 212.

Although the purchase made is of an ocean steamship ticket, the transaction regulated is wholly intrasate-as much so as if the purchase were of local real estate or of local theater tickets. There is no purpose on the part of *39 the state to regulate foreign commerce. The statute is not an obstruction to foreign commerce. It does not discriminate against foreign commerce. It places no direct burden upon such commerce. It does not affect the commerce except indirectly. Congress could, of course, deal with the subject, because it is connected with foreign commrce. But it has not done so. Nor has it legislated on any allied subject. Thus, there can be no contention that Congress has occupied the field. And obviously, also, this is not a case in which the silence of Congress can be interpreted as a prohibition of state action-as a declaration that in the sale of ocean steamship tickets fraud may be practiced without let or hindrance. If Pennsylvania must submit to seeing its citizens defrauded, it is not because Congress has so willed, but because the Constitution so commands. I cannot believe that it does.

Unlike the ordinance considered in Texas Transport Co. v. New Orleans, 264 U. S. 150, 44 S. Ct. 242, 68 L. Ed. 611, 34 A. L. R. 907, this statute is not a revenue measure. The license fee is small. The whole of the proceeds is required to defray the expense of supervising the business. Unlike the measure considered in Real Silk Mills v. Portland, 268 U. S. 325, 336, 45 S. Ct. 525, 69 L. Ed. 982, this statute is not an instrument of discrimination against interstate or foreign commerce. Unlike that considered in Shafer v. Farmers' Grain Co., 268 U. S. 189, 199, 45 S. Ct. 481, 69 L. Ed. 909, it does not affect the price of articles moving in interstate commerce. The licensing and supervision of dealers in steamship tickets is in essence an inspection law. Compare Turner v. Mary land. 107 U. S. 38, 2 S. Ct. 44, 27 L. Ed. 370.

The fact that the sale of the ticket is made as a part of a transaction in foreign or interstate commerce does not preclude application of state inspection laws, where, as here, Congress has not entered the flend, and the state regulation neither obstructs, discriminates against, nor directly burden the commerce. Patapsco Guano Co. v. United States, 171 U. S. 345, 18 S. Ct. 862, 43 L. Ed. 191; *40 Diamond Glue Co. v. United States, 187 U. S. 611, 23 S. Ct. 206, 47 L. Ed. 328; McLean v. Denver & Rio Grande R. R. Co., 203 U. S. 38, 54, 27 S. Ct. 1, 51 L. Ed. 78; Red ‘C’ Oil Mfg. Co. v. Board of Agriculture, 222 U. S. 380, 32 S. Ct. 152, 56 L. Ed. 240; Savage v. Jones, 225 U. S. 501, 32 S. Ct. 715, 56 L. Ed. 1182; Sligb v. Kirkwood, 237 U. S. 52, 62, 35 S. Ct. 501, 59 L. Ed. 835; Merchants' Exchange v. Missouri, 248 U. S. 365, 39 S. Ct. 114, 63 L. Ed. 300; Pure Oil Co. v. Minnesota, 248 U. S. 158, 39 S. Ct. 35, 63 L. Ed. 180; Hebe Co. v. Shaw, 248 U. S. 297, 39 S. Ct. 125, 63 L. Ed. 255; Weigle v. Curtice Brothers Co., 248 U. S. 285, 39 S. Ct. 124, 63 L. Ed. 242, Armour & Co. v. North Da