Opinion of the Court.

348 U.S.

ticular tract to complete the integrated plan rests in the discretion of the legislative branch. See Shoemaker v. United States, 147 U. S. 282, 298; United States ex rel. T. V. A. v. Welch, supra, 554; United States v. Carmack, 329 U. S. 230, 247.

The District Court indicated grave doubts concerning the Agency's right to take full title to the land as distinguished from the objectionable buildings located on it. 117 F. Supp. 705, 715–719. We do not share those doubts. If the Agency considers it necessary in carrying out the redevelopment project to take full title to the real property involved, it may do so. It is not for the courts to determine whether it is necessary for successful consummation of the project that unsafe, unsightly, or insanitary buildings alone be taken or whether title to the land be included, any more than it is the function of the courts to sort and choose among the various parcels selected for condemnation.

The rights of these property owners are satisfied when they receive that just compensation which the Fifth Amendment exacts as the price of the taking.

The judgment of the District Court, as modified by this opinion, is

Affirmed.

Syllabus.

NATIONAL UNION OF MARINE COOKS AND STEWARDS v. ARNOLD ET AL.

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON.

No. 19. Argued October 15, 1954. Decided November 22, 1954. The dismissal of an appeal from a money judgment by a state appellate court as a reasonable measure for safeguarding the collectibility of that judgment does not violate the Due Process Clause or the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; and, upon the facts in this case, the state appellate court's dismissal of petitioner's appeal was such a reasonable measure. Pp. 38-45.

1. No violation of the Equal Protection Clause has been shown in this case, because there has been no showing that anyone comparably situated has been treated differently from petitioner. P. 41.

2. Dismissal of the appeal in this case did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 41-45.

(a) Hovey v. Elliott, 167 U. S. 409, distinguished. Pp. 41-42. (b) While a statutory review is important and must be exercised without discrimination, such a review is not a requirement of due process. P. 43.

(c) Where the effectiveness of a money judgment is jeopardized by the judgment debtor, he has no constitutional right to an appeal extending that frustration. Pp. 43-44.

3. Dismissal of petitioner's appeal is not regarded as a penalty imposed as a punishment for criminal contempt. It was a reasonable method of sustaining the effectiveness of the state's judicial process as against the rights of a judgment debtor who appealed without filing a supersedeas bond and refused to comply with reasonable orders designed to safeguard the value of the judgment pending a decision on his appeal. Pp. 44-45.

Judgment affirmed.

Norman Leonard argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioner.

John Geisness argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief was Samuel B. Bassett.

Opinion of the Court.

348 U.S.

MR. JUSTICE BURTON delivered the opinion of the Court.

The question before us is whether a state appellate court violates either the Due Process or the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States when it dismisses an appeal from a money judgment as a reasonable measure for safeguarding the collectibility of that judgment. For the reasons hereafter stated, we hold that it does not and that the dismissal of the appeal in the instant case was such a reasonable measure.

This litigation resulted from a "blacklisting" letter written by Harris as an agent of petitioner, National Union of Marine Cooks and Stewards, in 1949, to persons able to affect the employment of the 95 respondents whose occupation was that of stewards in the Alaska trade.'

It took the following course:

1949-In the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County, respondents' libel action against petitioner and Harris, seeking $20,000 damages for each respondent, was dismissed on demurrer. June 9, 1950-On appeal to the Supreme Court of Washington, the letter was held libelous per se, the judg

1 It stated:

"Enclosed is a list of former members of the National Union of Marine Cooks and Stewards, who deserted this union during the 1948 maritime strike and attempted to organize a dual organization under the leadership of the Sailors Union of the Pacific for the purpose of breaking our strike and destroying our union.

"While these renegades have been completely discredited and defeated, they may attempt to obtain employment in other sections of the industry, particularly when the fishing season opens.

"This information is only for your guidance and formulation to your membership as to the constructive ways and means of carrying on a progressive labor organization." Arnold v. National Union, 36 Wash. 2d 557, 559, 219 P. 2d 121, 122.

ment was reversed and the cause remanded for trial.

36 Wash. 2d 557, 219 P. 2d 121.

September 4, 1951-In the Superior Court, a total judgment of $475,000 was rendered against petitioner and Harris, awarding $5,000 to each respondent.

September 5, 1951-In the Superior Court, petitioner and Harris filed notices of appeal to the Supreme Court but offered no supersedeas bond and obtained no stay of proceedings."

October 19, 1951-In the Superior Court, in the same case, respondents began a supplemental proceeding to discover petitioner's available assets.

February 15, 1952-In the Superior Court supplemental proceeding, the evidence disclosed no substantial assets of petitioner in Washington but showed $298,000 of United States bonds to be in its possession in California. The court ordered petitioner to deliver these bonds to the court's receiver, for safekeeping, pending disposition of petitioner's appeal. April 4, 1952-In the Superior Court supplemental proceeding, upon petitioner's failure to deliver the bonds, the court adjudged it in contempt, stating "that said contemptuous conduct . . . frustrates the enforcement of the judgment herein. . . and frustrates the receivership created herein by order of this Court ." 41 Wash. 2d 22, 24, 246 P. 2d

1107, 1108.

May 17, 1952-The Supreme Court struck from its calendar petitioner's appeal on the merits, pending its review of the adjudication of contempt "unless the said appellant Union sooner purges itself of the contempt

2 To stay proceedings on appeal, a supersedeas bond for double the amount of the damages and costs would have been required. Wash. Rev. Code, 1951, § 4.88.060.

Opinion of the Court.

348 U.S.

May 26, 1953-The Supreme Court held that the "adjudication of contempt is affirmed, and the appeal presently pending in the main action shall be dismissed unless, within fifteen days from the date of the remittitur herein, the appellant union purges itself of the order of contempt, by complying with the trial court's order requiring delivery of the bonds to the receiver." 42 Wash. 2d 648, 654, 257 P. 2d 629, 633.

May 27, 1953-In the Supreme Court, respondents filed an affidavit showing that petitioner's disbursements, in 1952, had been $633,391.10, as opposed to its receipts of $413,280.90, and that its total cash assets, at the end of that year, had shrunk to $90,389.84. June 12, 1953-In the Supreme Court, respondents renewed their motion to dismiss petitioner's appeal in the main action. They filed a supporting affidavit stating that "All of . . . [petitioner's] assets of substantial value are in California and two California courts have refused to entertain suit on the Washington judgment while this appeal is pending." July 3, 1953-The Supreme Court ordered dismissal of petitioner's appeal unless petitioner purged itself of contempt.

August 19, 1953—The Supreme Court denied petitioner a rehearing and entered judgment dismissing its appeal in the main action.

March 8, 1954-This Court granted certiorari because of the significant relation of the constitutional issue to the enforcement of state judgments. 347 U. S. 916.3

3 Two confirmatory rulings had intervened: November 16, 1953-In this Court, petitioner's appeal from the ad

judication of contempt in the supplemental proceeding was dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. 346 U. S. 881. February 2, 1954-In the Supreme Court, Harris' separate appeal, raising largely the same issues on the merits as petitioner's appeal, was heard and the judgment against him affirmed. 44 Wash. 2d 183, 265 P. 2d 1051.