The compulsory production of a man’s private papers to establish a criminal charge against him is within the scope of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, in all cases in which a search or seizure would be; because it is a material ingredient, and effects the sole object of the search and seizure. Compulsory production of papers is unwarrantable search and seizure. Such unwarrantable seizure of books and papers is compelling a person to be a witness against himself. The offense consists in the “invasion of the indefeasible right of personal security.” The manner of the invasion whether by force or by quiet entrance is not the violation; the violation of the right is the invasion of it, in whatever manner.[443] The law is perfectly well settled that the first ten amendments to the Constitution, commonly known as the Bill of Rights, were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, and which had, from time immemorial, been subject to certain well-recognized exceptions arising from the necessities of the case. In incorporating these principles into the fundamental law there was no intention of disregarding the exceptions, which continued to be recognized as they had been formally expressed. Thus the freedom of speech and of the press (Art. i.) does not permit the publication of libels, blasphemous, or indecent articles, or other publications injurious to public morals or private reputation; the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Art. x., 11) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons; the provision that no person shall be twice put in jeopardy, (Art. v.) does not prevent a second trial, if upon the first trial the jury failed to agree, or if the verdict was set aside upon the defendant’s motion (United States _v._ Ball, 163 U. S., 662, 672); nor does the provision of the same article that no one shall be a witness against himself impair his obligation to testify, if a prosecution against him be barred by the lapse of time, or by statutory enactment (Brown _v._ Walker, 161 U. S., 591 and cases cited); nor does the provision that an accused person shall be confronted with the witnesses against him prevent the admission of dying declarations, or the depositions of witnesses who have died since the former trial.[444]