Further accusations came from the opposition claiming the decision was motivated, as McLaren who petitioned for disallowance was a known political friend of Macdonald. Macdonald's conservative government was unsuccessful at arguing that this disallowance aligned with previous decisions, and conservative Dalton McCarthy conceded in parliament that the disallowance was based on a new principle. Macdonald defended the decision on the concept of protecting property rights and it was within the general interest of the Dominion to maintain those rights to ensure continued certainty in investment.
The opposition made further allegations, suggesting that the decision was influenced by McLaren's close ties to Macdonald, who had filed an appeal to have it overturned. The conservative government was unable to persuasively argue that this disallowance conformed with previous precedents, and Dalton McCarthy acknowledged in parliament that it was based on a fresh concept. Macdonald defended the decision by highlighting its aim at shielding property rights, which he believed were vital for ensuring predictability and attracting investment.