trNITEI) STAtES «.^BiiRGEB. 19^3 �cuted by a cfiminal information. Article 3, § 2, of the con-' stitution provides that "the trial of all efiim'e^, except iu. cases ofimp^aelidient;siiall be by jury';" and aiticle '6of tha a.mendments to the constitution provides that' '"in all crioiii nal prosecutions the acciieed shallenjoy theright to aspeedy^ and public trial by an im^j'artiar juty of the state arid distflct wherein the crime shall have been commiitted." 'if thetltiited States have a right to' prosecute 'the defendant ior tiie offenee aileged, by a criminal information instead of ah indicthierit, they have the right to tfy hinii for such offenee; -with a view' to punish him if he is convicted. He has a right to be tried by a jury, and by an impartial jury, andto have the benefit of the other safeguards provided by the constitution and the laws. But he has no right- to defeat a trial by saying that he wiil not plead to the information. The court has powerto try a person who refuses to plead tb an informatior), or who wilfully stands mute when arraigned on it, without entering for him a plea of not giiilty, and has a right to proceed in such trial as if there Were a plea of not guiltyy even though no statute of the United States specifically prescribes such mode of procedure in the case of an information. It ^ould have this power under the eonstitutional and statutory pro- visions before referred to, in the case of an indictment, even if there were no statutory provision in regard to standing' mute on an indictment. So it has likepbweron an informa- tion, without any such provision in regard to an information. The question arose in regard to an indictment in the cir- cuit court of the United States for the district of Maryland; in 1818, in U. S. v. Hare, 2 Wheeler's Cr. Cas. 283, before Mr. Justice Duvall and Judge Houston. The defendants were indicted under section 19 of the act of April 30, 1810,' (2 St. at Large, 5'98,) for robbing a mail-carrier. The pun-' ishment was death.' Oh beiiig arraigned they stood mnte. The act of 1790 was the 'only statute on the subject. The oflFence was one not made capital by th'at act. It was con- tehded for the defendants th'at the court had no pbwer to enter a plea of not guilty for them, or to try them. It was urged that the court must aScertain by a j^ry whether the ��� �
