United States with the consequences which
 would follow.

 This court has passed on substantially the
 same questions presented here in two cases,
 People of Porto Rico v. Tapia, 245 U.S. 639, 38
 Sup. Ct. 192, 62 L. Ed. 525, and People v.
 Muratti, 245 U. S. 639, 38 Sup. Ct. 192, 62 L.
 Ed. 526. In the former, the question was
 whether one who was charged with committing
 a felonious homicide some 12 days after the
 passage of the Organic Act in 1917, could be
 brought to trial without an indictment of a grand
 jury as required by the Fifth Amendment to the
 Constitution. The United States District Court
 of Porto Rico, on a writ of habeas corpus, held
 that he could not be held to answer and
 discharged him. In the other case, the felony
 charged was alleged to have been committed
 before the passage of the Organic Act, but
 prosecution was begun afterwards. In that, the
 Supreme Court of Porto Rico held that an
 indictment was not rendered necessary by the
 Organic Act. This court reversed the District
 Court in the Tapia Case and affirmed the
 Supreme Court in the Muratti Case, necessarily
 holding the Organic Act had not incorporated
 Porto Rico into the United States. These cases
 were disposed of by a per curiam. Counsel
 have urged us in the cases at the bar to deal
 with the questions raised more at length in
 exposition of the effect of the Organic Act of
 1917 upon the issue, and we have done so.

 A second assignment of error is based on
 the claim that the alleged libels here did not
 pass the bounds of legitimate comment on the
 conduct of the Govemor of. the island, against
 whom they were directed, and that its
 prosecution is a violation of the First
 Amendment to the Constitution, securing free
 speech and a free press. A reading of the two
 articles removes the slightest doubt that they
 go far beyond the "exuberant expressions of
 meridional speech," to use the expression of
 this court in a similar case in Gandia v. Pittingill,
 222 U. S. 452, 458, 32 Sup. Ct. 127, 56 L. Ed.
 267. Indeed, they are so excessive and
 outrageous in their character that they suggest
 the query whether their superlative vilification
 has not overleaped itself and become
 unconsciously humorous. But this is not a
defense.


 The judgments of the Supreme Court of
Porto Rico are

 Affirmed.

 Mr. Justice HOLMES concurs in the result.