But the bridges weren't in the City of Baltimore (unless you believe city limits stretched almost to the Pennsylvania border), and they were quite likely owned by the railroad.
"To effect this it was decided that railroad bridges north of the city should be destroyed. When word came that night that more troops were to enter Baltimore via the Northern Central Railroad, and that there was a possibility that some troops had already arrived at Perryville, where rail cargoes were ferried across the Susquehanna, the board decided to act. Marshal Kane was sent to see the Governor, who was staying at Mayor Brown's home. Kane informed Governor Hicks that within a few short hours a large body of troops, no doubt aware of the day's events and inflamed with resentment, would enter Baltimore. The Governor, though he would later deny it, supposedly gave his permission to burn the railroad bridges of the North Central and Philadelphia, Wilmington & Baltimore Railroads, effectively cutting Baltimore off from the North.
"Marshal Kane returned to the office of Charles Howard, president of the police board, and informed him of the Governor's consent. Necessary orders were given and messengers were sent out into the night to collect the men necessary to carryout the operation. One such messenger arrived shortly after midnight at Ravenhurst, the beautiful Victorian home of Isaac Ridgeway Trimble in north central Baltimore County. Trimble was Superintendent of the Baltimore and Potomac Railroad and a Colonel in the state militia. The messenger who awakened him presented Colonel Trimble the following order:
"Baltimore, 20 April 1861, 12 1/2 A.M.
By the authority of the Governor of Maryland and for the protection of the City of Baltimore, I hereby direct Col. Isaac Trimble to proceed up the Philadelphia R.R. and break down the bridges thereof up to the Susquehanna River, and also require all persons to refrain from opposition thereto.
George William Brown
Mayor of Baltimore"
(1) The Mayor of Baltimore is ordering that railroad bridges be burned north of the city, up the the Susquehanna River in northeast Maryland, near the Pennsylvania border - not exactly in his jurisdiction.
(2) The Mayor claims sanction by the Governor, who denies it.
(3) Even if the Governor did sanction burning the railroad bridges, it was an illegal order. Unless Maryland is the exception, the bridges are owned by the railroad company and are private property.
(4) The bridge-burning was a military action.
Which is why bridges outside of Baltimore itself were burned by state militia units such as Merryman's. Whether they belong to the railroads or not is of no consequence beyond the compensation owed to those owners for their property by the state of Maryland and/or the city of Baltimore. Just the same, police today would be justified in blocking a privately owned bridge if it was being used in a manner that threatened the public safety.
The Governor, though he would later deny it, supposedly gave his permission to burn the railroad bridges of the North Central and Philadelphia, Wilmington & Baltimore Railroads, effectively cutting Baltimore off from the North.
Hicks was a very weasily fellow and was widely criticized by both sides for failing to assert and stick to one position or another on handling the crisis - a sort of John Kerry for his day. It is certain that he approved the order then later flip flopped and denied having done so to accomodate the political tides.
(1) The Mayor of Baltimore is ordering that railroad bridges be burned north of the city, up the the Susquehanna River in northeast Maryland, near the Pennsylvania border - not exactly in his jurisdiction.
...at direct authorization of the governor.
(2) The Mayor claims sanction by the Governor, who denies it.
No. The Governor, who was a political weasil of John Kerry proportions according to both sides, denied it several months later when it had been determined by him that it was no longer politically popular to have been involved in that decision.
(3) Even if the Governor did sanction burning the railroad bridges, it was an illegal order. Unless Maryland is the exception, the bridges are owned by the railroad company and are private property.
Wrong as usual. You are correct only in that Maryland would be legally liable for the costs owed to the railroads for the bridges. The destruction of those bridges for a pressing matter of public safety, however, is well within the rights of the state of Maryland. You will also note that the militia leader you named also happened to be the head of one of the railroads!
(4) The bridge-burning was a military action.
It was a state militia action.
BTW, there are contemporary statements by people other than the mayor that say the governor agreed with the decision to block the troops coming into the city by destroying or disabling the bridges. I don't know how believable these statements are, but the governor is on record publicly opposing sending troops through the city.
"By the authority of the Governor of Maryland ""One such messenger arrived shortly after midnight at Ravenhurst, the beautiful Victorian home of Isaac Ridgeway Trimble in north central Baltimore County. Trimble was Superintendent of the Baltimore and Potomac Railroad and a Colonel in the state militia."
Whether it was the Governor or a lying Mayor who authorized the bridge-burning, John Merryman was a member of the State Militia carrying out orders which were valid on their face.
Assuming the Governor or Mayor acting improperly, charges could have been preferred against the Governor or Mayor.
Naturally, Merryman was only involved with bridges near Cockeysville where he lived.