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.
Exactly how was passing troops through the state a danger to the (law-abiding) public safety? The presence of Federal soldiers was only a danger to the insurrectionists and other criminals.
"It was a state militia action."
It was an act of war by rebels directed against the miltary forces of the United States.