to reach the two thirds vote required and on April 10 efforts began to revise the bill a third time. Review On March 26, the bill was presented to the President. There was great disagreement among Washington's advisors, and therefore he called upon Edmund Randolph, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, and Henry Knox to give him their opinions of the bill. Randolph and Jefferson both said, as the bill established the total number of representatives, 120, by dividing the aggregate of the federal census by 30,000, it was unconstitutional. The Constitution required, they argued, the choice of a common divisor and the division of the population residing in each state by that number to establish the size of the United States House of Representatives. Also, the fact that the allocating method invented by Hamilton, which the bill was using, gave an additional member to the eight states with the largest fraction left over after dividing by 30,000 was called "repugnant to the spirit of the constitution" by Randolph. Jefferson urged that Washington veto it because it was unconstitutional and introduced principles that were liable to be abused in the future. Contrary to Jefferson and Randolph, both Knox and Hamilton urged that he approve the bill. Knox argued on April 3 that the Constitution was unclear about "whether the numbers of representatives shall be apportioned on the aggregate number of all the people of the United States, or on the aggregate numbers of the people of each state." As the constitutionality of the bill was, Knox said, "only doubted not proved but the equity of the measure apparent, it would appear rather a delicate measure for the President to decide the question contrary to the bill as passed." Hamilton wrote Washington on the following day that, while he had not yet read the bill, it seemed to him that the bill "performs every requisition of the constitution; and it will not be denied that it performs this in the manner most consistent with equality." Like Knox, Hamilton believed that "In cases where two constructions may reasonably be adopted, and neither can be pronounced inconsistent with the public good, it seems proper that the legislative sense should prevail" and the bill should be signed into law. Veto After considering both sides of the argument, Washington decided that Jefferson and Randolph were correct, and Washington agreed that the bill was unconstitutional. Even so, Washington