Another case involved attachment necessary to secure jurisdiction in state court—clearly a most basic and important public interest.

The due process clause does not impose upon the states a duty to establish ideal systems for the administration of justice, with every modern improvement and with the provision against every possible hardship that may befall

For example, in 1921, the United States Supreme Court upheld a Delaware statute which authorized the attachment of property located within the state but belonging to nonresidents

Although the Court noted that such summary procedure might meet due process requirements in extraordinary situations

—upheld the constitutionality of attachment of the property of a nonresident in order to obtain jurisdiction.

—the Court upheld the constitutionality of a Delaware attachment statute which precluded the entry of appearance and defense by a nonresident defendant whose property had been attached, except upon posting of special bail.

This history must be considered as supporting the proposition that jurisdiction based solely on the presence of property satisfies the demands of due process

—"... it cannot rightly be said that the Fourteenth Amendment furnishes a universal and self-executing remedy. Its function is negative, not affirmative, and it carries no mandate for particular measures of reform...."

The presumption of validity which applies to legislation generally is fortified by acquiescence continued through the years.

—according due process approval to the use of an attachment without prior notice where the use of the attachment was necessary to the acquisition of jurisdiction.