2. Should all causes of action created by federal law confer federal question jurisdiction? SHOSHONE MINING CO. v. RUTTER, 177 U.S. 505, 20 S.Ct. 726, 44 L.Ed.

864 (1900) involved a federal statute establishing a system allowing miners to resolve conflicting claims to land patents. The federal statute provided that the right to possession was to be determined by the “local customs or rules of miners in the several mining districts, so far as the same are applicable and not inconsistent with the laws of the United States.”

Id. at 508, 20 S.Ct. at 727, 44 L.Ed. at 865. The Court determined that the suit did not arise under federal law for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1331:

Inasmuch * * * as the “adverse suit” to determine the right of possession may not involve any question as to the construction or effect of the Constitution or laws of the United States, but may present simply a question of fact as to the time of the discovery of mineral, the location of the claim on the ground, or a determination of the meaning and effect of certain local rules and customs prescribed by the miners of the district, or the effect of state statutes, it would seem to follow that it is not one which necessarily arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States.

Id. at 509, 20 S.Ct. at 727, 44 L.Ed. at 866.